Agenda packet — San Clemente City Council, May 6, 2025 (part 1 of 5)

910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
Council Chambers
Mayor Knoblock
Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier
Councilmember Cabral
Councilmember Loeffler
Councilmember Wu
4:30 p.m. - Closed Session
5:30 p.m. - Business Meeting

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Tuesday, May 6, 2025
City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda
Information concerning City Council Meeting protocols and procedures is contained at the end of this agenda.

RULES FOR ADDRESSING COUNCIL
• Members of the public may address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente.
• If you wish to address Council, please complete one of the blue speaker cards located at the entrance to the Council Chambers and turn it in to the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk. • Persons wishing to address Council concerning an agendized item will be invited to address Council during the time that Council is considering that particular agenda item.

Persons wishing to address Council concerning a non-agendized issue will be invited to address Council during the “Oral Communications” portion of the meeting. • When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation. Please limit your presentation to three minutes.

MISSION STATEMENT
The City of San Clemente, in partnership with the community we serve, will foster a tradition dedicated to:

Maintaining a safe, healthy atmosphere in which to live, work and play; Guiding development to ensure responsible growth while preserving and enhancing our village character, unique environment and natural amenities; Providing for the City’s long-term stability through promotion of economic vitality and diversity…
Resulting in a balanced community committed to protecting what is valued today while meeting tomorrow’s needs.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is the state law that requires the City to evaluate and document the potential environmental consequences of discretionary decision. (See, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21189.3; and the “CEQA Guidelines” at California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). For each item that requires a CEQA determination by the City Council, there is a reference to that determination on this agenda, and more information regarding the CEQA analysis is included in the documents that accompany this agenda. To the extent that City staff determines that particular items are not subject to CEQA, there will be no indication of a CEQA action on this agenda.

Page 1 of 13 ends

1 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 6, 2025

DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Pursuant to Government Code § 84308, City Council Members are disqualified and not able to participate in any agenda item involving contracts (other than competitively bid, labor, or personal employment contracts), franchises, discretionary land use permits and other entitlements if the City Council Member received more than $500 in campaign contributions from the applicant or contractor, an agent of the applicant or contractor, or any financially interested participant who actively supports or opposes the City’s decision on the agenda item since January 1, 2023. Members of the City Council who have received, and applicants, contractors or their agents who have made, campaign contributions totaling more than $500 to a City Council Member since January 1, 2023, are required to disclose that fact for the official record of the subject proceedings. Disclosures must include the amount of the campaign contribution and identify the recipient City Council Member and may be made either in writing to the City Clerk before the agenda item or by verbal disclosure during consideration.

CLOSED SESSION (4:30 P.M.)
A. CLOSED SESSION WITH SHERIFF AND AGENCY COUNSEL ON MATTERS

POSING A SECURITY THREAT
Closed session with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code section 54957(a) on matters posing a threat to the security of public buildings, a threat to the security of essential public services, a threat to the public’s right of access to public services or public facilities, or a threat to critical infrastructure controls.

BUSINESS MEETING (5:30 P.M.)

CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION – Assistant Pastor Steve Pascoe, Calvary Chapel San Clemente

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

1. Special Presentations
None.

2. Oral Communications (Part 1)
Members of the audience who wish to address Council on matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente, but not separately listed on the agenda, may do so during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. Speakers may address Council once during either Oral Communications Part 1 or Part 2. A total time limitation of 30 minutes is allocated for Oral Communications Part 1, with each speaker being allotted 3 minutes in which to give his or her presentation. Speaker order is determined by the order in which speaker cards are provided to the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk at the meeting. Speakers that cannot be accommodated during Oral Communications Part 1 will be invited to address Council during Oral Communications Part 2, which appears on this agenda as Item No. 12. When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, request clarification or refer the item to staff.

3. Motion waiving reading in full of all Resolutions and Ordinances

Page 2 of 13 ends

2 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 6, 2025

4. Consideration of agendizing items requiring immediate action Per Government Code section 54954.2(b) and 54956.5. Any items agendized will be considered under New Business, unless otherwise determined by a majority vote of the City Council.

5. Closed Session Report - City Attorney

6. Staff Communications

7. Public Hearings
The Public Hearing process includes a staff presentation, a presentation by the applicant not to exceed ten (10) minutes, and public testimony (not to exceed three minutes per speaker). Following closure of the Public Hearing, the City Council will respond to questions raised during the hearing, discuss the issues, and act upon the matter by motion.
7A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF THE 2025-2029

CONSOLIDATED PLAN INCLUDING THE AMENDED CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION PLAN, 2025-2026 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR

EXPENDITURES OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS, AND THE 2025-2029 ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR

HOUSING
Public hearing for the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan, which includes the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan, amendments to the City’s Citizen Participation Plan, and the 2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing. This action is taken in compliance with federal regulations [24 CFR 91].

Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-47, which will:

1. Approve the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan with the amended Citizen Participation Plan and 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan (AAP); receive and file the 2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing (OC-AFH).

2. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to submit the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan (AAP) to the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and execute the contract and related agreements, forms, and certifications.

3. Accept grant revenues of an estimated $312,427 from U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to Fund 017 - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Grants Fund.

4. Authorize a related budget appropriation of an estimated $312,427 to the

Page 3 of 13 ends

3 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 6, 2025
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fund for the amounts in the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan (AAP).

5. Authorize staff to make changes to the above based on actual funding.

8. Unfinished Business
None.

9. New Business
9A. CONSIDERATION OF AND POTENTIAL INTRODUCTION (FIRST READING)

OF AN ORDINANCE TO IMPOSE TERM LIMITS ON CITY COMMISSION

AND/OR COMMITTEE MEMBERS
(Agendized by Council majority at the April 1, 2025 City Council meeting.) Staff Recommendation
If the City Council determines to implement term limits for City Commissions and Committees, introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1790 entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTIONS 2.28.080, 2.32.080,

2.36.080, 2.43.080, 2.45.080, AND 2.46.080 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF

THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE TO ADD TERM LIMITS, RELATING TO THE

BEACHES, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, PLANNING

COMMISSION, GOLF COURSE COMMITTEE, INVESTMENT ADVISORY

COMMITTEE, ARTS AND CULTURE COMMITTEE, AND COMMUNITY
SAFETY AND WELFARE COMMITTEE, RESPECTIVELY.
9B. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF 2025 SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS OF
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-1 (MARBLEHEAD COASTAL) OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE IF INTEREST RATES ALLOW FOR A 3%

OR GREATER NET PRESENT VALUE SAVINGS, AND APPROVING THE

FORM OF A BOND INDENTURE, ESCROW AGREEMENT, BOND

PURCHASE AGREEMENT, PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND

CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING OTHER

ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-48 entitled RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-1 (MARBLEHEAD COASTAL)

OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS 2025 SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS AND APPROVING CERTAIN

DOCUMENTS AND TAKING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.

Page 4 of 13 ends

4 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 6, 2025
9C. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION ON THE OFFSHORE SAND

SOURCE INVESTIGATION PROJECT
(Agendized by Councilmember Cabral, with the support of Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier and Councilmember Loeffler at the April 15, 2025 City Council meeting.)
Staff Recommendation
Provide direction to staff to confirm or modify the strategy for selecting sites for exploration of an adequate sand source site.

10. Consent Calendar
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion unless Council or Staff requests removal of an item for separate discussion and action.

A. City Council Minutes
Staff Recommendation:
(1) APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 2025.

B. Commission/Committee Minutes
Staff Recommendation:

Receive and file the following:
(1) APPROVE THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2025.
(2) BEACHES, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2025.
(3) PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF
MARCH 25, 2025.
(4) DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OF APRIL 9, 2025.
(5) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2025.

C. Warrant Register
(1) APPROVE WIRE TRANSFER NO.
3226 AND WARRANT NOS.
603880 THROUGH 604020, PAID ON
4-11-25, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,886,911.08

Page 5 of 13 ends

5 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 6, 2025
(2) APPROVE WIRE TRANSFER NOS.
3227 THROUGH 3232 AND WARRANT NOS.
604021 THROUGH 604267, PAID ON
4-18-25, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,636,316.88
TOTAL WARRANT REGISTER $5,523,227.96
Payroll Register

APPROVE AUTOMATIC DEPOSIT ADVISES
102286 THROUGH 102631, FOR THE PERIOD
3-31-25 THROUGH 4-13-25, PAID
ON 4-18-25, IN THE AMOUNT OF $531,663.24
TOTAL PAYROLL REGISTER $531,663.24
10D. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM

PIERPRIDE FOUNDATION, APPROVING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE

MUNICIPAL PIER TOP RAIL MATERIAL, APPROVING A ONE-TIME

EXPENSE AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-49, which will:

1. Find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction, 14 CCR §15302) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Approve the replacement of the wooden pier railing with composite material.

3. Authorize the one-time use of funds from Capital Improvement Project No. 24102, General Pier Maintenance.

4. Accept a $20,000 donation from the PierPride Foundation to be dedicated towards the project.
10E. ADOPTION OF CITY INVESTMENT POLICY
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Investment Policy Number 202-1, effective January 27, 2025.

Page 6 of 13 ends

6 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 6, 2025
10F. NOTICE OF COMPLETION - WATER RECLAMATION PLANT (WRP) SODIUM

HYPOCHLORITE TANK REPLACEMENT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-50, which will:

1. Accept the Water Reclamation Plant Sodium Hypochlorite Tank Replacement, CIP Project No. 23405, from the contractor, Jennette Company, Inc.

2. Authorize the City Clerk to execute and record the Notice of Completion for the Water Reclamation Plant Sodium Hypochlorite Tank Replacement.

3. Authorize the City Clerk to release the Payment Bond 35 days from the recordation of the Notice of Completion upon verification with the Engineering Division that no liens have been levied against the contractor, Jennette Company, Inc.

4. Authorize the City Clerk to release the Performance Bond for this project upon receipt of a warranty bond in a form acceptable to the Public Works Director/City Engineer in the amount of 25% of the total construction cost. 10G. NOTICE OF COMPLETION - DIGESTER NO. 2 CLEANING, RESIDUAL

DISPOSAL AND INSPECTION
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-51, which will:

1. Accept the Digester No. 2 Cleaning, Residual Disposal and Inspection, CIP Project No. 21203, from the contractor, M.P. Environmental Services, Inc.

2. Authorize the City Clerk to execute and record the Notice of Completion for the completed Digester No. 2 Cleaning, Residual Disposal and Inspection.

4. Authorize the City Clerk to release the performance bond for this project upon receipt of a warranty bond in a form acceptable to the Public Works Director/City Engineer in the amount of 25% of the total construction cost.

Page 7 of 13 ends

7 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 6, 2025
10H. CONTRACT AWARD - FY 2025 MAJOR STREET MAINTENANCE, APPROVING A 15% PROJECT CONTINGENCY, AND FINDING THE

PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-52, which will:
..recommendation

1. Find the FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance, CIP Project No. 25303, categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR section 15301) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Award the FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance contract to Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc.

3. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C25- 18, by and between the City of San Clemente and Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc., providing for the FY 2025 Major Street Maintenance, in an amount not to exceed $370,517, in a form substantially similar to Contract No. 25- 18 (Attachment 3).

4. Approve a 15% construction contingency of $55,577 for this project. 10I. CONTRACT AWARD - SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL LANE

RECONFIGURATION AND BUFFERED BIKE LANE PROJECT FROM

AVENIDA MENDOCINO TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT, APPROVING A
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $848,900 AND

MAKING FINDINGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-53, which will:

1. Make findings under the California Environmental Quality Act that no further environmental review is required.

2. Approve a supplemental appropriation of $848,900 from the Gas Tax Fund into Account No. 012-861-45300-000-11308.

3. Reject Diamond Construction & Design, Inc.'s bid as non-responsive and Award the South El Camino Real Lane Reconfiguration & Buffered Bike Lane Project, Federal Project No. CML-5274(039), FTIP No. ORA 190914, City CIP Project No. 11308, contract to ONYX Paving Company, Inc. as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

Page 8 of 13 ends

8 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 6, 2025

4. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C25- 19, by and between the City of San Clemente and ONYX Paving Company, Inc., providing for for the South El Camino Real Lane Reconfiguration & Buffered Bike Lane Project, in an amount not to exceed $1,639,000, in a form substantially similar to Contract No. C25- 19(Attachment 6).

5. Approve a 10% construction contingency of $163,900 for this project. 10J. CONTRACT AWARD - COST-OF-SERVICE STUDY FOR THE CITY’S WATER UTILITY, AND APPROVING AN 8.9% PROJECT CONTINGENCY
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-54, which will:

1. Award a Professional Services Agreement to Water Resources Economics, LLC for a Cost-of-Service Study for the City’s Water Utility for an amount not to exceed $73,465.

2. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C25- 20, by and between the City of San Clemente and Water Resources Economics, LLC, providing for a Cost-of-Service Study for the City’s Water Utility, in an amount not to exceed $73,465.

3. Authorize the City Manager to approve amendments for additional services up to an 8.9% project contingency of $6,535, if needed. 10K. CONTRACT AWARD - AS-NEEDED CONTRACTUAL PLANNING STAFF

SUPPORT SERVICES
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No, 25-55, which would:

1. Award a professional services agreement to Community Counterpart Services Corp. and award a professional services agreement to The Code Group, Inc. dba VCA Code for as-needed contractual planning staff support.

2. Accept grant revenues in the amount of $131,000 to Account No. 001-000 -33446 (Coastal Grant Revenue).

3. Approve a supplemental appropriation of $131,000 to Account No. 001- 433-43890 (other contractual services) which will supplement existing budgeted funds for contract planning services.

4. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C25-

Page 9 of 13 ends

9 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 6, 2025
21, by and between the City of San Clemente and Community Counterpart Services Corp., providing for for as-needed contractual planning staff support, for a term of two (2) years, in an amount not to exceed $50,000 annually.

5. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C25- 22, by and between the City of San Clemente and The Code Group, Inc. dba VCA Code, providing for for as-needed contractual planning staff support, for a term of two (2) years, in an amount not to exceed $50,000 annually.
10L. CONTRACT AWARD - DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE VISTA HERMOSA SPORTS PARK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT, APPROVING A 10% PROJECT

CONTINGENCY, AND MAKING FINDINGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-56, which would:

1. Make consistency findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. Award a professional services agreement to Hirsch & Associates, Inc. for design services for the Vista Hermosa Sports Parks Meadows Development, PN 15108.

3. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C25-23, by and between the City of San Clemente and Hirsch & Associates, Inc., providing for design services for the Vista Hermosa Sports Parks Meadows Development, in an amount not to exceed $143,873.

4. Approve a 10% project contingency.
10M. CONTRACT AMENDMENT - AUDIT SERVICES
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-57, which will:

Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C18-23, by and between the City of San Clemente and Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP, extending the auditor services for the next two fiscal years, in an amount no to exceed $134,750.

Page 10 of 13 ends

10 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 6, 2025
10N. CONTRACT AMENDMENT - SUNDAY FARMERS MARKET, AND FINDING

THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No 25-58, which will:

1. Find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR § 15301), Section 15301 of the state CEQA Guidelines.

2. Approve the First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement Contract No. C20-28 with Introductions Unlimited, Inc.

3. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C20-28, by and between the City of San Clemente and Introductions Unlimited, Inc., for the operation of the San Clemente Sunday Farmers Market.
10O. CONTRACT AMENDMENT - WASTE DISPOSAL AGREEMENT, AND

FINDING THE AGREEMENT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-59, which will:

1. Find the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR 15301) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C97-93, by and between the City of San Clemente and the County of Orange, for the Waste Disposal Agreement.

11. Oral Communications (Part 2)
Members of the audience who wish to address Council on matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente, but not separately listed on the agenda, may do so during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation, not to exceed three minutes. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, request clarification or refer the item to staff.

12. Future Agenda Items

Page 11 of 13 ends

11 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 6, 2025

13. Reports
A. Council Member Reports
B. City Attorney
C. City Manager

14. Adjournment
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled to take place on May 20, 2025.

Closed Session will begin at 4:30 p.m. and the Regular Business Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will take place in the Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd Floor, San Clemente.

Page 12 of 13 ends

12 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda May 6, 2025

CITY COUNCIL MEETING PROCEDURES

PRESENTATION OF WRITTEN MATERIALS TO COUNCIL
In order to ensure that Councilmembers have adequate time to consider written materials concerning agenda items, it is strongly recommended that such materials be submitted to the City Clerk by noon the date preceding the Council meeting.

MEETINGS RECORDED AND TELEVISED
City Council meetings are broadcast live and are replayed periodically on Cox Communications Local Access Channel 854. Meetings are also available for live-stream or post meeting viewing from the City’s website.

Meetings are also recorded via audio CD and/or DVD and retained as a City record in accordance with the City’s records retention schedule.

USE OF ELECTRONIC VISUAL AIDS BY PUBLIC AT MEETINGS
To allow staff adequate time to confirm software compatibility, individuals wishing to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentations at the meeting, must submit the electronic files to the City Clerk by no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Only compatible electronic formats will be permitted to be used on City audio/visual computer equipment. Staff makes no guarantee that such material will be compatible, but will use its best efforts to accommodate the request.

LENGTH OF MEETINGS
At 11:00 p.m., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon at this meeting and will continue all other agenda items to a future meeting.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (949) 361-8200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

COMMUNICATION DEVICES
To minimize meeting distractions and sound system interference, please be sure all personal communication devices are turned off or on silent mode.

MEETING SCHEDULE
Regular Council Meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month in the Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd floor, San Clemente. Closed Session are considered at 5:00 p.m. and the Business Meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. Additional meetings of the City Council may be called as needed.

AGENDAS, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN MATERIALS Agendas and Administrative Reports are available for review and/or copying at the City Clerk’s Department as soon as agendas are posted, by accessing the City’s website at www.san-clemente.org. An “Inspection Copy” of agenda materials is also located at the entrance to the Council Chambers during meetings for public review. All written material distributed to a majority of the Council after the original agenda packet was distributed is available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Department, located at 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, during normal business hours.

The City Clerk’s Department offers an agenda packet subscription service free of charge. If you wish to receive email copies of City Council agendas, which include hyperlinks to staff reports and other back-up material, register at http://san-clemente.org/enotification.

Page 13 of 13 ends

13 910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: May 6, 2025 Agenda Item: 7A.

Submitted By: Community Development
Prepared By: Adam Atamian, Community Development Director Subject:
..titl e
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF THE 2025-2029 CONSOLIDATED PLAN INCLUDING THE AMENDED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN, 2025-2026 ANNUAL

ACTION PLAN FOR EXPENDITURES OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS, AND THE 2025-2029 ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ..body
Fiscal Impact:

The Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan (AAP) will have a positive fiscal effect by allowing the City to continue utilizing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to meet housing, infrastructure, and social service needs of the community. For fiscal year 2025-2026, this results in an estimated $300,000 of CDBG funds to the Miscellaneous Grant Fund, with additional funding to be determined annually through the submission of future AAPs.

Summary:

Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) determines the amount of CDBG funds the City receives based on various community factors such as population, household income, and housing needs. Every five years, the City is required to prepare a Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is carried out through the AAP, which provides a summary of the activities and the specific federal and non-federal resources that will be used each year to address the priority needs and specific goals identified by the Consolidated Plan.

For the City Council’s consideration is a resolution to approve and adopt the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan, the 2025-2026 AAP, the amended Citizen Participation Plan, and the 2025- 2029 Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing (OC-AFH). Adoption of the Consolidated Plan and AAP establishes the City’s eligibility to receive CDBG grant funding.

Background:

The City Council adopted the current Consolidated Plan in May 2020. FY 2024-2025 is the final year of the current Consolidated Plan cycle. To continue to receive CDBG funds from HUD, the City must adopt both a Consolidated Plan and associated FY 2025-2026 AAP that lists eligible projects and activities to be carried out during the next fiscal year with CDBG funds.

Due to the delay in the approval of the 2025 federal budget, HUD has not notified the City how much it will receive in FY 2025-2026; however, HUD allows the City to estimate grant funding in order to meet the CDBG application deadline of May 15. For planning purposes, Community Development staff estimates the City will receive $300,000 in FY 2025-2026 CDBG funds – approximately 5.5 percent less than current year funds. Staff has also identified $12,427 in prior14 Meeting Date: May 6, 2025 Agenda Item: 7A.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
year, uncommitted CDBG funds that are available for programming in FY 2025-2026. Finally, program income received during the year from repayment of prior funded housing rehabilitation loans will be available to support additional housing rehabilitation activities.

All funds must be used to benefit persons of low or moderate income, or targeted populations identified by HUD. HUD regulations require the draft Consolidated Plan and AAP be available for public review for 30 days. The City must also hold a public hearing to obtain public comments regarding the draft Consolidated Plan and AAP
and the proposed use of CDBG funds.

The OC-AFH is a five-year plan that includes an analysis of housing patterns and demographic data. This information is used to identify and address fair housing issues and forms the foundation for promoting equitable housing opportunities. The City is also required to comply with the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibits discrimination based on protected personal and familial characteristics. In addition, the City must take proactive steps to affirmatively further fair housing. The OC-AFH serves as the City’s primary policy document for achieving these goals.

Finally, as a recipient of CDBG funds, the City is required to maintain a Citizen Participation Plan.

This plan outlines the policies and procedures the City will follow to encourage public participation in the CDBG program. The City is proposing amendments to the current plan.

The approval and adoption of these documents require a 30-day comment period and a public hearing. A notice of such was published in the San Clemente Times on April 03, 2025, announcing the 30-day comment period and the May 06, 2025, public hearing. The required comment period commenced on April 04, 2025, and ended on May 05, 2025.

Discussion:

All recipients of CDBG funds are required to prepare a Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan identifies a jurisdiction's overall housing and community development needs. It also outlines specific goals and objectives that will guide the City's CDBG funding priorities over a multi-year period. The City Council adopted the current 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan in May 2020.

The 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan contains updated goals and objectives, with CDBG funding priorities falling into four general categories: 1) public improvements, 2) housing and commercial rehabilitation, 3) public services, and 4) program administration. The Consolidated Plan is prepared using HUD’s electronic template, which includes over 50 community profiles and housing market data tables prepopulated with HUD data.

The Consolidated Plan assesses the City’s housing and community needs, as well as the market conditions that may impact these needs. The Consolidated Plan also includes a plan that outlines a strategy to address priorities over the next five years using CDBG resources. The Strategic Plan section of the Consolidated Plan establishes the following five-year goals:
• Improve or expand the supply of housing affordable to lower-income households • Provide or improve public infrastructure and facilities that benefit low- and moderateincome neighborhoods and residents 15 Meeting Date: May 6, 2025 Agenda Item: 7A.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
• Provide or improve access to public social services for low- and moderate-income persons and persons with special needs
• Provide a continuum of housing and supportive services for households at risk of homelessness and the homeless
• Expand or preserve economic opportunities for lower-income residents or small businesses that serve lower-income residents
• Provide program administration and planning activities needed to carry out actions that address needs identified in the Consolidated Plan, including services to affirm fair housing laws
The 2025-2026 AAP is the first year of the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan cycle. It is the City's one-year expenditure plan for CDBG funds, addressing priority needs and goals identified within the Consolidated Plan. The AAP details CDBG funding allocations for public improvements, housing/commercial rehabilitation, public service providers, and administration. The 2025-2026 AAP is incorporated into the Draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan.

1. Public Improvements
According to HUD, CDBG funds may be used for activities that include, but are not limited to, the construction or rehabilitation of public facilities and improvements, such as streets, sidewalks, community centers, and neighborhood parks.

The FY 2025-2026 AAP allocates $132,427 for neighborhood sidewalk improvements. The proposed sidewalk project utilizing these funds will begin at 1307 Avenida De La Estrella on the west side of southbound Avenida De La Estrella to La Placentia, adjacent to Bonito Canyon Park (Census Tract 421.07 – Block Group 1). To further enhance the walkability and safety of the area, construction of approximately 580 linear feet of concrete sidewalk, including curbs, gutters, ramps, and a pedestrian crossing area at 1014 Avenida De La Estrella to the Southwest corner, is being proposed. The project is within a CDBG-eligible census tract and is estimated to assist 1,345 individuals, 62.1 percent of whom are low and moderate-income (835 individuals).

2. Housing and Commercial Rehabilitation
Since 1994, the City has provided eligible property owners with Home Rehabilitation Program loans, and since 2004, the City has provided Commercial Façade Rehabilitation Program grants to eligible commercial property owners. Residential improvement loan proceeds are primarily utilized to address housing and building code deficiencies and deferred property improvements.

The maximum residential rehabilitation loan amount is $35,000 and $25,000 for mobile homes.

The loan carries zero percent interest, with repayment deferred until the home is refinanced or sold/transferred. Loan repayment proceeds are recycled into additional home rehabilitation loans (i.e., program income). The typical commercial rehabilitation grant is used to design and install new business signs or awnings. The maximum grant amount is $2,000. Grants are limited to businesses that serve residents of CDBG-eligible areas.

The 2025-2026 AAP allocates $75,000 in CDBG funds, plus program income received during the year, for the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program. Three owner-occupied housing units are anticipated to be rehabilitated during the year. However, in recent years, there has been a lack of 16 Meeting Date: May 6, 2025 Agenda Item: 7A.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 4
applicants and utilization of funds designated for the Commercial Façade Rehabilitation Program.

Therefore, no funds have been allocated for FY 2025-2026. Funding has been reallocated to fund other projects within the plan. Should the City decide to budget for the program in the future, the funds may be re-allocated via a future fiscal year AAP.

3. Public Services
The City can allocate up to 15 percent of its annual CDBG grant for public services (i.e., social services). Based on the estimated FY 2025-2026 CDBG grant, up to $45,000 is available for public service grants.

In December 2024, the City notified local nonprofit organizations serving San Clemente residents via the City's website and email that the FY 2025-2026 CDBG public services grant application was available.

In January 2025, the City received five applications for CDBG funding. All applicants combined requested $54,440 in CDBG funding - $9,440 more than anticipated to be available. On March 11, 2025, the City's Social Services Budget Committee reviewed the applications and recommended $45,000 in CDBG funding for the following programs:
 Age Well Senior Services: $6,440 to assist an estimated 75 San Clemente seniors with Meals on Wheels.
 Camino Health Center: $12,000 to assist an estimated 2,500 residents with low cost medical and dental services.
 Family Assistance Ministries: $14,000 to assist an estimated 50 low and moderate-income persons with case management and supportive services, including Homeward Bound assistance. Direct financial rent and utility assistance is limited to households at risk of eviction or loss of critical public utilities. Homeward Bound assistance will help an individual experiencing homelessness return to their original city of residence or community where they have an established support system.
 Silver Connections (City of San Clemente): $7,060 in CDBG funds will offset the cost of a new recreation program for an estimated 100 seniors. This program will provide socialization and physical activities for adults aged 62 or older. (In prior years, the City utilized CDBG funds to support the Fun on the Run Program.)
 Parentis Foundation: $5,500 to support one-on-one reading tutoring for students not reading at grade level; trained older adult volunteers recruited from the community will provide tutoring for an entire school year. The program is anticipated to assist 30 youths.

4. Administration
The City may allocate up to 20 percent of its annual CDBG grant for administration activities.

Administrative program costs include funding for fair housing services and City staff and contractual staff time for the overall grant management. Staff conducts public outreach and education, administers and monitors the social services grant program, and coordinates with the Engineering Division in setting community priorities for the CDBG target area. Contract staff oversees the Home Rehabilitation Program, prepare mandatory reports, and work closely with City staff to administer the program. Community Development staff recommends allocating 17 Meeting Date: May 6, 2025 Agenda Item: 7A.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 5
$60,000 for CDBG program administration, including $5,000 for fair housing services. The Fair Housing Foundation will continue to provide HUD-required fair housing outreach, education, and enforcement services for an estimated 50 San Clemente households.

The Draft 2025-2026 AAP provides additional details regarding the activities recommended for CDBG funding. Below is a summary of funding recommendations.

TABLE 1: PROPOSED FY 2025-2026 CDBG ALLOCATIONS
2025-2026 CDBG PROPOSED ACTIVITY PROPOSED CDBG

FUNDING
Public Facility Improvements:

Avenida De La Estrella Sidewalk Improvements $132,427
Housing Rehabilitation:

Housing rehabilitation assistance for owner-occupied * $75,000 Public Services:

Youth, seniors, and other low/mod-income households $45,000 CDBG Administration:

CDBG Program oversight and Fair Housing counseling $60,000 TOTAL: $312,427
2025-2026 CDBG RESOURCES
2025-2026 CDBG Grant (Estimate) $300,000
Prior Year Funds $12,427
TOTAL: $312,427
* Plus program income received during FY 25-26 from repayment of prior funded housing rehab loans.

Staff also recommends that the City Council authorize staff to adjust CDBG allocations listed in Table 1 proportionally once HUD publishes the final grant amount for FY 2025-2026.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibits the City from discrimination in housing-related activities and requires the City to affirmatively further fair housing. State law also requires the City to implement measures that affirmatively further fair housing; the City’s Housing Element outlines this latter strategy. To comply with federal regulations, the City joined other Orange County cities and the County of Orange to develop the county-wide 2025-2029 Regional Assessment of Fair Housing (OC-AFH). The OC-AFH includes an extensive analysis of housing and community indicators, as well as the input of residents. A list of impediments to fair housing choice has been developed for each participating jurisdiction. A corresponding set of action steps to address fair housing barriers specific to each jurisdiction has also been prepared. A summary of the OC-AFH and San Clemente’s Fair Housing Action Plan is incorporated into the Consolidated Plan as Attachment A. The entire OC-AFH is posted on the City’s website (www.sanclemente.org/departments-services/housing-and-social-services).

HUD requires the City to maintain a Citizen Participation Plan to receive CDBG funds. The Citizen Participation Plan outlines the policies and processes the City will implement to encourage public input related to the City’s CDBG program, including amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan. The City Council approved the current Citizen Participation Plan in May 2020.

The draft amended plan is provided as Attachment B to the Consolidated Plan. Three amendments are proposed:
18 Meeting Date: May 6, 2025 Agenda Item: 7A.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 6
• In certain situations, the City is allowed to amend the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan without holding a public comment period or hearing, including reallocating CDBG funds from one activity to another. HUD allows the City to establish this reallocation threshold. The current threshold is 45 percent of the current year CDBG allocation. The proposed amendment will increase this threshold to 55 percent.
• The 2020 version of the Citizen Participation Plan refers to the HUD-required fair housing plan as the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI). The proposed amendment to the Citizen Participation Plan adds references to the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), which is the successor to the AI.
• General spelling and grammatical corrections.

Council Options:
• Adopt Resolution No. 25-47, which will, (1) approve and adopt the Draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan including the amended Citizen Participation Plan and 2025-2026 AAP for the use of CDBG Funds, (2) authorize the City Manager to submit the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan including the amended Citizen Participation Plan and 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan, and the 2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing to HUD to execute the contract and related agreements, forms, and certifications, (3) accept grant revenues of an estimated $312,427 from HUD to Fund 017 - CDBG Grants Fund, and (4) authorize a related budget appropriation of an estimated $312,427 to the CDBG fund for the amounts in the FY 2025-2026 AAP, (5) receive and file the 2025-2029 OC-AFH and the Amended Citizen Participation Plan.
• Modify and adopt Resolution No. 25-47, to adjust the proposed allocation of CDBG funds in the AAP, or the proportionally proposed metric by which the anticipated funds should be reallocated if final CDBG funding from HUD is different than the estimated $300,000. • Continue the item and direct staff to provide additional information. Note that continuing the item could result in missing the CDBG application submission deadline, which is May 15, 2025.
• Do not adopt Resolution No. 25-47. This action would result in the City forgoing CDBG funding for FY 2025-2026.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

Not a project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (14 CCR 15378). The approval of the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds has no potential for resulting in either a direct or physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Appropriate CEQA determinations will be made for specific projects resulting from the allocation of CDBG funds after the grant is awarded. 19 Meeting Date: May 6, 2025 Agenda Item: 7A.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 7
Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 25-47, which will accomplish the following:
..recommendation

1. Approve the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan with the amended Citizen Participation Plan and 2025-2026 AAP; receive and file the 2025-2029 OC-AFH;

2. Authorize the City Manager to submit the Consolidated Plan and AAP to HUD and execute the contract and related agreements, forms, and certifications;

3. Accept grant revenues of an estimated $312,427 from HUD to Fund 017 - CDBG Grants Fund;

4. Authorize a related budget appropriation of an estimated $312,427 to the CDBG fund for the amounts in the 2025-2026 AAP; and

5. Authorize staff to make proportional changes to the above based on actual funding. ..end
Attachment:

1. Proposed Resolution No. 25-47

2. Draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan with amended Citizen Participation Plan and 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan

3. 2025-2029 OC-AFH
Notification:

Public notice published in the San Clemente Times.
20 Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-47

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2025-
2029 CONSOLIDATED PLAN WITH AMENDED CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION PLAN AND 2025-2026 ANNUAL ACTION

PLAN, AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE PLAN TO THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, AND RECEIVING AND FILING THE 2025-
2029 ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSMENT OF FAIR

HOUSING
WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente is eligible to participate in the Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) Program; and
WHEREAS, to receive CDBG funds, the City is required to prepare a five-year Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2024-2025 through 2029-2030; and WHEREAS, the Consolidated Plan will identify the City’s overall housing and community development needs, outlining specific goals and objectives that will guide the City's CDBG funding priorities over a multi-year period; and WHEREAS, the Annual Action Plan, a component of the Consolidated Plan, is updated each fiscal year and includes the application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") for CDBG funds and required certifications related to the receipt and use of CDBG funds; and
WHEREAS, the actual use of CDBG funds for specific projects and programs may require the execution of additional forms and certifications by a duly authorized representative of the City; and
WHEREAS, HUD has not yet indicated the actual amount of funds available for the City, so the City has had to make a reasonable estimation thereof; and WHEREAS, to affirmatively further fair housing initiatives, the City participated in the preparation of the 2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment to Fair Housing (“OC-AFH”), which will be a key point of reference on fair housing matters within the City; and
WHEREAS, as a recipient of CDBG funds, the City is required to maintain a Citizen Participation Plan that outlines the policies and procedures to encourage the participation of the public in the implementation of the CDBG program.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente, California, does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows:
21 Resolution No. 25-47 Page 2
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan with the amended Citizen Participation Plan, 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan, and the 2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, copies of which are attached to the agenda report dated May 6, 2025, entitled “Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan including the amended Citizen Participation Plan and 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan for expenditures of Community Development Block Grant funds, and the 2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing,” and are incorporated herein fully by this reference.

Section 2. The City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, is authorized to submit the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan with the amended Citizen Participation Plan and 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan to HUD on behalf of the City.

Section 3. The City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, is hereby authorized and directed to approve and execute any and all HUD-and/or CDBG-related applications, certifications, agreements, and/or other documents or instruments and take such actions as are necessary and proper to implement the approvals and authorizations as set forth herein, including but not limited to proportionally increasing or decreasing the estimated CDBG allocations for approved activities identified in the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan to match the City’s actual 2025-2026 CDBG allocation once determined, approved, and announced by HUD.

Section 4. The City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, is hereby authorized to accept the final HUD-allocated grant revenues, estimated at $312,427, to Fund 017 - CDBG Grants Fund, and the actual amounts of the same so granted.

Section 5. The City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, is hereby authorized and directed to allot a related budget appropriation of the final HUD-allocated grant revenues, estimated at $312,427, to the CDBG fund for the amounts in the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan.

Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter in into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6
th day of May, 2025.

ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Steve Knoblock, Mayor of the City San Clemente, California of San Clemente, California
22 Resolution No. 25-47 Page 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 25-47 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of _______________________, _________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
___________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
23 CITY OF

SAN CLEMENTE
Draft 2025-
2029

CONSOLIDATED
PLAN
&
2025-2026
Annual Action
Plan
April 4, 2025
$WWDFKPHQW
24 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE i
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Table of Contents
Executive Summary
ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) ......................................................................... 1 The Process
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b)............................................................................. 4 PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.215(I) and 91.315(I).............................. 5 PR-15 Citizen Participation – 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c)..................................................13 Needs Assessment
NA-05 Overview ......................................................................................................................................16 NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a, b, c) ..................................................................18 NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) ........................................25 NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) ............................28 NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2)..................................30 NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2) .....................................................31 NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b) ..........................................................................................................32 NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c)....................................................................................37 NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b, d)...........................................................40 NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) .......................................................43 Housing Market Analysis
MA-05 Overview .....................................................................................................................................44 MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2).............................................................................45 MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) ...............................................................48 MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a)......................................................51 MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b) ....................................................................................54 MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c) .............................................................................. 56 MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d).......................................................................58 25 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE ii
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e) ................................................................................60 MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f) ......................................................62 MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion.......................................................................................68 MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing Occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households -

91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2).......................................................................................................................70 MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3)...........................................................................72 Strategic Plan
SP-05 Overview .......................................................................................................................................74 SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1)............................................................................................75 SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2).........................................................................................................76 SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b)................................................................................79 SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2)...................................................................81 SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k)..................................................................................83 SP-45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a)(4)......................................................................................................86 SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c)...........................................................89 SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.215(h)...................................................................................90 SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d)..............................................................................................92 SP-65 Lead-based paint Hazards – 91.215(i)...........................................................................................94 SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) .................................................................................................95 SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230 .....................................................................................................................96 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan
AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2) ...........................................................................................97 AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives......................................................................................................100 AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d)....................................................................................................................102 AP-38 Project Summary ........................................................................................................................103 AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f)...........................................................................................109 26 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE iii
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g)..................................................................................................110 AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h).........................................................................................................111 AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i)..........................................................112 AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j) .................................................................................114 AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)...........................................................................................................115 Program Specific Requirements............................................................................................................117 Appendices
Appendix 1: Summary 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Accomplishments Appendix 2: Citizen Participation Notice and Comments
Appendix 3: Maps
A. Hispanic Concentration
B. Asian Concentration
C. Housing Cost Burden
D. CDBG-Eligible Areas
Attachments
Attachment A: 2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing (Executive Summary) and San Clemente AFH Action Plan
Attachment B: Citizen Participation Plan
Certifications and Standard Forms
27 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 1
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Executive Summary
ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)

1. Introduction
The 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan for the City of San Clemente satisfies federal requirements for receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The primary objective of the CDBG program is to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunities, principally for people of low and moderate-income.

HUD allocates CDBG funds on a formula basis to over 1,200 local governments and States. The formula for the allocation of CDBG is based on variables including current population, projected population growth, age of housing stock, and poverty rate. Each activity to be undertaken with CDBG funds must meet one of the three national objectives:
x Benefit low and moderate-income persons
x Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight x Meet an urgent need (such as earthquake, flood, or hurricane relief) HUD requires recipient communities to prepare a Consolidated Plan every three to five years. The 2025- 2029 Consolidated Plan will cover the five years of Fiscal Year 2025-2026 through Fiscal Year 2029-2030.

The Community Development Department is the City’s lead agency in preparing the Consolidated Plan.

It is important to note that the Consolidated Plan has been prepared utilizing HUD’s eConPlan Suite. The software suite consists of several templates, which, once completed, will be uploaded and electronically submitted to HUD. The Consolidated Plan template dictates the content of the document and affords City staff limited opportunities to expand narratives or modify the format. The template also includes over 50 community profile and housing market data tables. Most tables are prepopulated with data from the U.S. Census Bureau, primarily data from the 2016–2020 American Community Survey (ACS). To a lesser degree, data from HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) is also utilized.

The CHAS is a special computation of housing and income data generated by the Census Bureau on behalf of HUD. Whenever possible, other data sources with current information are used to supplement HUD-provided data.

Based on the analysis of various housing and community variables and the input of community stakeholders, the following community needs are identified as priority needs:
x Many San Clemente households are paying a significant percentage of their income for housing.

Lower-income elderly appear to be the most impacted
x Several service agencies are available to assist the City’s lower-income households and homeless with safety net programs; however, need often exceeds supply 28 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 2
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 x In general, the City’s housing and commercial building inventory are in good shape; however, older properties may need rehabilitation to address deferred maintenance x The City’s public infrastructure and facilities are in good condition; however, some public improvements may be missing or require updating, and others may need to comply with current ADA regulations
x The Fair Housing Act requires the City to affirmatively further fair housing. San Clemente joined other Orange County cities and the County of Orange to develop the 2025-2029 Regional Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), a policy document utilized by HUD grantees for this purpose The Consolidated Plan outlines an array of goals, outcomes, and activities that the City can implement over five years. Each year, an Action Plan will be prepared, which will serve as the City’s expenditure plan for its annual CDBG allocation. HUD has yet to publish 2025 CDBG grant allocations. For planning purposes, the City anticipates receiving $300,000 in CDBG funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-2026. The City has also identified $12,427 in prior year funds that will be available to undertake CDBG-eligible activities during FY 2025-2026. CDBG program income received during the fiscal year will be available to fund eligible housing rehabilitation activities. The Action Plan details the specific activities the City will undertake with CDBG funds to address the housing and community needs of the community during FY 2025-2026. Planned activities include sidewalk improvements, housing rehabilitation, public services, and program administration (including fair housing services). Funded activities will support the broader goals and objectives identified in the Consolidated Plan.

2. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment Overview
Information regarding five-year goals and outcomes is provided in the Strategic Plan portion of the Consolidated Plan. A summary of these goals is provided below:

1. Infrastructure and Facility Improvements: Improve public infrastructure and facilities that benefit 5,400 low- and moderate-income residents

2. Provide housing assistance to 15 homeowners and 1 rental housing owner

3. Provide access to public social services for 12,500 low- and moderate-income individuals

4. Provide access to supportive services and housing for 250 individuals at risk of becoming homeless or who are homeless

5. Support activities to promote economic opportunities by assisting 10 businesses that serve lower-income residents

6. Provide CDBG program oversight and coordination, including fair housing services to 275 households
29 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 3
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25

3. Evaluation of past performance
Appendix 1 provides a summary of the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan accomplishments through FY 2023-2024. Final accomplishments for the fifth year of the Consolidated Plan cycle (FY 2024-2025) are not available.

4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process A vital component of the Consolidated Plan preparation process is the input of residents and community stakeholders concerning priority needs and activities to address needs. The City encouraged resident participation in a variety of ways:
x Sub-recipient meeting to obtain public input regarding priority housing and community needs. x Community Survey posted on the City’s website and social media (no responses were received). x The input of community residents via the Human Affairs Committee and City Council meetings. x Newspaper and webpage notices regarding public meetings/hearings and the draft Consolidated Plan's availability for public review and comment.

5. Summary of public comments
See Appendix 2.

6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them See Appendix 2.

7. Summary
The City’s Community Development Department has prepared the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan so the City can continue to receive CDBG funds from HUD. The primary objective of the CDBG program is to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate-income. Additionally, each activity to be funded with CDBG funds must meet one of the three national objectives.

HUD requires recipient communities to prepare a Consolidated Plan every three to five years. The 2025- 2029 cycle will cover the five years from FY 2025-2026 through FY 2029-2030. As required by HUD, the Consolidated Plan is prepared using HUD’s electronic template.

The 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan is the first fiscal year of the new Consolidated Plan cycle. The Annual Action Plan is the City’s one-year expenditure plan for CDBG funds. The City anticipates it will receive an allocation of $300,000 in CDBG funds for FY 2025-2026. Prior year and program income funds are also available to undertake eligible activities. CDBG funding is allocated for residential rehabilitation, social services, capital improvements, and program administration. Funded activities will support the broader goals and objectives identified within the Consolidated Plan. 30 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 4
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 The Process
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b)

1. Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.

Table 1 – Responsible Agencies
Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator SAN CLEMENTE Community Development
Narrative
The City’s Community Development Department is primarily responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and administering CDBG funds.

Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Mr. Adam Atamian, Community Development Director
[email protected] / (949) 361- 361-6196
31 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 5
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.215(I) and

91.315(I)

1. Introduction
Pursuant to HUD regulations, the City took several actions to obtain the input of community residents and stakeholders to develop the Consolidated Plan and the 2025-2026 Action Plan. Consultation efforts included public meetings and a public hearing. The City held meetings to assess the social service needs of residents and to provide input regarding the Consolidated Plan and Annual Plan funding priorities.

The City also consulted with State and regional agencies. Finally, the City utilized its internet webpage and the local community newspaper to notify residents of the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and 2025-2026 Action Plan.

In coordination with other regional partners, action steps were also taken to obtain public input for the 2025-2029 Regional Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). These actions are detailed in the draft 2025-2029 Regional AFH, a summary of which is incorporated into the Consolidated Plan as Attachment A.

Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health, and service agencies (91.215(I)).

The City of San Clemente works closely with the County of Orange Housing Authority (OCHA) to assist renter households with housing vouchers and certificates. As housing development evolves, City staff work closely with developers to identify opportunities to create new housing for lower-income residents.

Through its annual CDBG Public Service Grants funding process, City staff can ascertain the type of services City residents require, such as senior, youth, and homeless services. The City has developed partnerships with several local agencies to ensure the delivery of quality social services for residents.

Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness As a supporter of the Orange County Continuum of Care (OC-CoC) planning process, the City provides information to the OC-CoC regarding the activities it will fund to address local homeless issues. The OCCoC uses this information to prepare the regional application to HUD for Homeless Assistance Grant funds. As needed, City staff will expedite certifications of consistency with the Consolidated Plan and other forms of support for the OC-CoC.

Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies, and procedures for the administration of HMIS 32 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 6
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 The City is not a recipient of Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds; therefore, it does not assist the OCCoC with determining ESG allocations, evaluating the outcomes, or developing policies and procedures for administering the regional Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).

2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations, and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction's consultations with housing, social service agencies, and other entities
33 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 7
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Table 2 – Agencies, groups, and organizations who participated 1 Agency/Group/Organization Orange County Housing Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type PHA
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
Public Housing Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Provided data regarding households receiving
HUD rental assistance and households on the
waitlist for rental housing assistance
2 Agency/Group/Organization 211 Orange County
Agency/Group/Organization Type Regional organization
Planning organization
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Homelessness Needs - Veterans
Homelessness Needs - Unaccompanied youth
Homeless Management Information System
(HMIS)
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Provided data regarding regional homeless
and the County’s coordinated entry system
HMIS
3 Agency/Group/Organization Fair Housing Foundation
Agency/Group/Organization Type Service-Fair Housing
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Impediments to Fair Housing
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Provided data regarding fair housing issues in
the community and input related to
impediments to fair housing and assisted in
developing action steps to affirm fair housing
4 Agency/Group/Organization Age Well Senior Services
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Elderly Persons What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
Non-Homeless Special Needs
34 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 8
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Provided input regarding the housing and
service needs of seniors, including
homebound seniors
5 Agency/Group/Organization Family Assistance Ministry
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing
Services-homeless
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Homeless Strategy
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Anti-poverty Strategy
Needs of Low/Mod persons
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Provided input regarding the housing and
service needs of homeless households and
households at risk of becoming homeless
6 Agency/Group/Organization South County Outreach
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing
Services-homeless
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Anti-poverty Strategy
Needs of Low/Mod persons
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Provided input regarding the needs of lowerincome households, specifically individuals/households at risk of becoming
homeless
7 Agency/Group/Organization Laura’s House
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-homeless
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Homeless Needs - Families with children
Needs of Low/Mod persons
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Provided input regarding the housing and
service needs of victims of domestic violence
8 Agency/Group/Organization Camino Health Center
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Health
35 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 9
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Anti-poverty Strategy
Needs of Low/Mod persons
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Provided input regarding the medical/dental
service needs of the community, including
homeless individuals
9 Agency/Group/Organization Parentis Foundation
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services – Youth
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Provided input regarding the needs of lowerincome youths 10 Agency/Group/Organization Council on Aging – Southern California Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Elderly Persons What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Provided information regarding the housing
and service needs of elderly and disabled
individuals residing in managed care facilities
11 Agency/Group/Organization County of Orange
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - County What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Regional program information
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Various county departments provided
information regarding public health, public
safety, and housing programs
12 Agency/Group/Organization State of California
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government - State What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
State program information
36 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 10
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Various state departments provided
information regarding demographics, public
safety, and economics
13 Agency/Group/Organization City of San Clemente
Agency/Group/Organization Type Other government – Local What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
Homelessness Strategy
Market Analysis
Economic Development
Anti-poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Various city departments provided data and
information regarding community needs and
projects and programs eligible for future
funding
37 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 11
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide the rationale for not consulting The City had an open consultation process. No agency was knowingly not consulted.

Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Table 3 – Other local/regional/federal planning efforts Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the
goals of each plan?
Continuum of Care Orange County 211 Provides regional and local point-in-time homeless survey
data, development of the
regional 10-Year Plan to End
Homelessness, and
development of the regional
Discharge Plan
City of San Clemente 2021-2029
Housing Element
City of San Clemente Provides housing priorities and
program goals
City of San Clemente Capital
Improvement
Plan
City of San Clemente Identifies priority capital
improvement projects which
may be CDBG-eligible
5 Yr. & 1 Yr. PHA Plan Orange County Housing
Authority
Identifies OCHA resources to
address the housing needs of
lower-income renter
householders in the County and
City
2025-2029 Regional Assessment
of Fair Housing
Orange County HUD Grantee
Cities and the County of Orange
The countywide document that
identifies fair housing
impediments within
participating cities and outlines
a plan to address fair housing
issues
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan City of San Clemente Local plan to reduce hazards and improve resilience through
capital improvements, planning,
and emergency planning
Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan (91.215(l))
The California Department of Health was consulted to obtain information regarding elevated lead blood levels in children as part of the City’s assessment of lead-based paint hazards. State agencies were also consulted to obtain updated housing and population information. The County of Orange was contacted 38 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 12
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 to get information regarding the number of households receiving rental assistance, homeless count, and other regional plans. Local governments also assisted the City with the preparation of the Consolidated Plan. As the current recipient of Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds, the City of Anaheim was consulted regarding the number of San Clemente residents living with HIV and AIDS and HOPWA program resources available to residents. The City also participated in roundtable meetings with other Orange County CDBG recipients to discuss the preparation of a regional Assessment of Fair Housing and other regional housing and community needs.

Narrative (optional):
39 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 13
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 PR-15 Citizen Participation – 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c)1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participationSummarize the citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-settingThe City’s Citizen Participation Plan, presented as Attachment B, outlines the City’s process for obtaining public input in the development of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan (AAP), and other facets of the CDBG Program. The opportunities for public input are delineated in Table 4 and summarized below. x Public Workshop: In December 2024, the City co-hosted a meeting of local social service providers to discuss the upcoming public service grant application process and to obtain input on social service needs. Community meetings were held in March 2025 to gather public input related to the preparation of the 2025-2029 Regional AFH. x Community Survey: Between December 2024 and March 2025, an online community survey was available to obtain public input on priority housing and community needs. The survey was posted on the City’s website, news feed and social media; however, no responses werereceived. x Focus Group and Public Hearing: Consistent with HUD’s regulations, the City also utilized a focus group in the form of an existing City committee to obtain input on priority needs and to make recommendations on the allocation of limited CDBG resources. Specifically, the Budget Committee held a public meeting on February 11, 2025, at which time Committee members provided input on public service needs. The City Council held a public hearing at a regularly noticed and scheduled meeting (May 6, 2025) to obtain public input on the draft Consolidated Plan, the proposed allocation of 2025-2026 CDBG funds, and the Regional AFH. x Notices/Website: Public notices were published in local newspapers of general circulation. Additionally, the draft Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, and AFH were posted on the City’s website for public review and comment, and hard copies were made available during the required 30-day public comment period (see Appendix 2).
40 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 14
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Citizen Participation Outreach
Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach
Sort
Order
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
Response/Attendance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
Comments not
Accepted and Reasons
URL (If
applicable)
1 Public Meeting Social Service
Providers
The City conducted a public workshop on 12/4/24 to obtain information regarding community service needs from local service providers. 23individuals representing 12organizations attended Meeting comments centered on local service needs and the CDBG public service grant application process All comments were accepted
NA
2 Public Meeting Non-English
Speaking - Specify
other language: VariousNon-targeted/
broad community
AFH public input meeting on 3/5/25 &
3/6/25 and via Zoom 3/7/25 & 3/13/25
A summary of the comments received is found in Attachment A Attachment A NA
41 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 15
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Sort
Order
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
Response/Attendance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
Comments not
Accepted and Reasons
URL (If
applicable)
3 Public Meeting Non-targeted/
broad community
City of San Clemente Human Affairs Budget Committee (3 members) 3/11/25 The Committee received an overview of FY 25-
26 public service
grant applications and discussed preliminary funding levels NA NA
4 Newspaper Ad Non-targeted/
broad community
Notice regarding the 30-day public review
period (4/ 4/25 to
5/5/25) and 5/6/25public hearing
See Appendix 2 See Appendix 2 NA
5 Public Hearing Non-targeted/
broad community
5/6/25 public hearing See Appendix 2 See Appendix 2 NA
42 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 16
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Needs Assessment
NA-05 Overview
Needs Assessment Overview
HUD provided the City with extensive data to assess the housing needs of San Clemente residents. By default, this data is based on HUD’s CHAS data for 2016-2020, which the U.S. Census Bureau generates.

Updated information is provided if available.

The housing and community need to be assessed in this section of the Consolidated Plan includes the following:
x Household experiencing “housing problems” (defined below) x The extent to which housing problems are experienced disproportionally by one or more racial or ethnic groups
x Public housing – NOTE: THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE DOES NOT OWN OR MANAGE PUBLIC

HOUSING
x An assessment of homeless needs
x Non-housing community development needs
HUD’s housing needs estimates are based on an evaluation of CHAS data of households that are experiencing one or more “housing problems.” Per HUD, a household is experiencing a housing problem if its residential unit is subject to one or more of the following:
x Lack of a complete kitchen facility or plumbing facilities x Cost burden: More than 30% of a household’s total gross income is spent on housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, and utilities. x Severely Cost Burden: More than 50% of a household’s total gross income is spent on housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, and utilities. x Overcrowded: Defined as a housing unit with more than 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half-rooms.
x Severely Overcrowded: Defined as housing with more than 1.51 persons per room excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half-rooms.

HUD data also characterizes households by types:
x Small Related: Family household with two to four related members x Large Related: Family household with five or more related members x Elderly: Household whose head, spouse, or sole member is at least 62 years of age x Other: All other households (including one-person households) 43 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 17
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 HUD defines a “household” as “All the people who occupy a housing unit. A household includes the related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as partners or roomers, is also counted as a household.” Finally, HUD categorizes households by income:
x Extremely low-income: A household with an income equal to 0 to 30% of the Area Median Income or AMI (also referred to as HUD Area Median Family Income or HAMFI) x Very low-income: A household with an income equal to 30 to 50% of the AMI x Low-income: A household with an income equal to 50 to 80% of the AMI x Low- and moderate-income: A household with an income less than 80% of AMI x Moderate-income: A household with an income equal to 80 to 100% of AMI 44 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 18
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a, b, c) Summary of Housing Needs
San Clemente has experienced a decline in population growth during the past five years. According to U.S. Census Bureau data presented in Table 5 below, the City’s population decreased very slightly between 2009 and 2020 (90 individuals); however, a search of current data found that the California Department of Finance estimates San Clemente’s January 1, 2024, population at 62,297 – a decrease of

4.06% from 2020 HUD data. In comparison, during the same period, the State of California reports that the County’s population contracted by approximately 1.13%, and California’s population decreased by

1.03%.

The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates indicates that as of 2023, there are 24,093 households in the City. The Census Bureau also estimates the Household Median Income (2023 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) is $134,735.

Table 5 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics
Demographics Base Year: 2009 Most Recent Year: 2020 % Change Population 65,020 64,930 -0%
Households 24,070 24,390 1%
Median Income $98,153.00 $108,183.00 10%
Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2016-2020 ACS (Most Recent Year) Number of Households Table
Table 6 - Total Households Table
0-30%
HAMFI
>30-50%
HAMFI
>50-80%
HAMFI
>80-
100%
HAMFI
>100%
HAMFI
Total Households 3,085 2,810 4,255 2,150 12,085
Small Family Households 620 960 1,875 715 6,535
Large Family Households 25 295 285 255 1,135
Household contains at least one person
62-74 years of age 780 815 1,050 640 2,805
Household contains at least one person
aged 75 or older 695 520 660 340 1,225
Households with one or more children 6
years old or younger 170 225 610 190 1,490
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
45 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 19
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Housing Needs Summary Tables

1. Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) Table 7 – Housing Problems Table
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Substandard
Housing -
Lacking
complete
plumbing or
kitchen facilities 70 60 55 30 215 0 0 0 0 0
Severely
Overcrowded -
With >1.51
people per room
(and complete
kitchen and
plumbing) 40 150 65 15 270 0 0 45 0 45
Overcrowded -
With 1.01-1.5
people per room
(and none of the
above problems) 10 105 30 0 145 35 0 75 0 110
Housing cost
burden greater
than 50% of
income (and
none of the
above problems) 1,210 640 445 20 2,315 965 790 820 160 2,735 Housing cost
burden greater
than 30% of
income (and
none of the
above problems) 50 375 730 235 1,390 135 235 590 575 1,535 Zero/negative
Income (and
none of the
above problems) 165 0 0 0 165 115 0 0 0 115
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
46 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 20
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25

2. Housing Problems 2 (Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost burden) Table 8 – Housing Problems 2
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Having 1 or more of four
housing problems 1,335 960 590 70 2,955 1,000 790 935 160 2,885 Having none of the four
housing problems 320 455 1,580 710 3,065 430 600 1,145 1,210 3,385 Household has negative
income, but none of the
other housing problems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

3. Cost Burden > 30%
Table 9 – Cost Burden > 30%
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small Related 240 500 620 1,360 285 350 745 1,380
Large Related 30 75 54 159 0 110 170 280
Elderly 420 225 250 895 695 515 530 1,740
Other 695 415 335 1,445 155 45 65 265
Total need by income 1,385 1,215 1,259 3,859 1,135 1,020 1,510 3,665 Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

4. Cost Burden > 50%
Table 10 – Cost Burden > 50%
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small Related 0 0 375 375 265 270 0 535
Large Related 0 0 40 40 0 110 20 130
Elderly 395 135 10 540 580 390 255 1,225
Other 0 695 150 845 155 0 0 155
Total need by income 395 830 575 1,800 1,000 770 275 2,045 Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
47 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 21
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25

5. Crowding (More than one person per room)
Table 11 – Crowding Information – 1/2
Renter Owner
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Single-family households 40 240 95 15 390 35 0 105 0 140 Multiple, unrelated family
households 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10
Other, non-family
households 10 20 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0
Total need by income 50 260 95 15 420 35 0 115 0 150
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
Table 12 – Crowding Information – 2/2
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total
Households
with Children
Present
NA NA
Describe the number and type of single-person households in need of housing assistance.

Data provided by HUD’s Consolidated Plan template does not provide information for single-person households in need of housing assistance. However, according to the Census Bureau (2019-2023 ACS), there are 5,321 one-person households in San Clemente – 2,777 of these households are owners (53.1% of total one-person households), and 2,454 are renters (46.9%). According to Table 9, 265 “Other” lower-income owner households are experiencing a housing cost burden, and 1,445 “Other” lowerincome renter households have a cost burden. This data table indicates a significant portion of oneperson renter households may need housing assistance.

According to information from the OCHA, 72 one-person San Clemente households are presently on the waitlist for federal rental assistance. OCHA reports that 129 one-person San Clemente households currently receive federal rental assistance.

Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who are disabled or victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

Disabled: According to 2023 Five-year ACS data, there are an estimated 6,213 San Clemente residents with a disability – approximately 9.8% of the City’s population. Federal laws define a person with a disability as "Any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities...” Of residents with a disability, 692 (11.2%) are living below the poverty level. 48 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 22
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 According to OCHA, 112 San Clemente households that currently receive federal rental assistance are disabled households - 47 disabled San Clemente households are on the waitlist for federal rental assistance.

The City’s elderly population has significant levels of disability. The ASC estimates that 25.8% of seniors, age 65 and over, have a disability. Since seniors have a much higher probability of being disabled, the housing and service needs for persons with disabilities should grow considerably with senior population growth. Accessibility housing needs of the disabled population, including the elderly, can typically be addressed through housing rehabilitation programs that can provide improvements such as ramps, grab bars, wider doorways, lower sinks, and specialized kitchen cabinets. The City of San Clemente’s housing rehabilitation program can assist homeowners with mobility limitations in improving their residence accessibility.

Victims of Domestic Violence: The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) estimates that nationwide, an average of 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States. NCADV also reports that one in three women and one in four men in the U.S. have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

The State of California Department of Justice reports that in 2023, there were 38 calls for assistance related to domestic violence in San Clemente. However, Laura’s House, a leading domestic violence service provider in South Orange County, estimates that only one in seven incidents are reported.

Laura’s House also estimates that for each victim of domestic violence who receives shelter and support services, 15 to 20 individuals are turned away due to lack of space. The Orange County 2024 Point In Time Survey of the region’s homeless estimates that 10.0% of unsheltered homeless and 10.4% of sheltered homeless in the County are victims of domestic violence.

What are the most common housing problems?
According to HUD data from Table 7, the most common housing problem in San Clemente is a severe housing cost burden (over 50% of income for housing). This housing problem impacts both renter and owner households. A relatively small number of renter households are experiencing crowding and substandard housing (as defined by HUD).

Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these problems? HUD data indicates that cost is the most prevalent housing problem in San Clemente. Table 9 provides estimates regarding the number of lower-income households impacted by a housing cost burden.

According to HUD data, Elderly and “Small Related” households are the most affected households by numbers (2,635 and 2,740, respectively).

Per Table 10, 73.1% of extremely low-income Elderly renter households are impacted by a severe housing cost burden, and nearly half of extremely low-income Elderly owner households (47.3%) are also experiencing a severe housing cost burden. Renter and owner households categorized as “Other” are also experiencing high rates of severe housing cost burden. 49 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 23
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 As indicated above, few San Clemente households are impacted by crowded housing. According to Table 11, only 570 households live in “crowded” housing (as defined by HUD). HUD’s data indicates that 420 of these households are renters, and 150 are owners. According to the City’s Code Enforcement staff, crowding, as defined by HUD, is not a significant issue. It is important to note that the City is required to enforce the State’s housing occupancy standards, which allow more people to live in a housing unit than the limits defined by HUD.

According to Table 7, 215 renter households (and zero-owner households) are impacted by substandard housing (as defined by HUD). According to the City’s Code Enforcement staff, substandard housing, as defined by HUD, is not a significant issue.

Describe the characteristics and needs of low-income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low-income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)/91.305(c)). Also, discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance The National Alliance to End Homelessness identifies several “causes” of homelessness, including income and housing affordability. Per the Alliance, “Low-income households are typically unemployed or underemployed due to a number of factors, such as a challenging labor market; limited education; a gap in work history; a criminal record; unreliable transportation or unstable housing; poor health or a disability…Today, 11 million extremely low-income households pay at least half of their income toward housing, putting them at risk of housing instability and homelessness.” Based on HUD data, 3,845 extremely low-income households in San Clemente pay more than 50% of household income for housing (see Table 10). Of these households, approximately 45.9% are “Elderly” households (1,765), and

26.0% are “Other” households (1,000).

OCHA reports that as of February 2025, 99 San Clemente households are on the waitlist for federal rental assistance - 17 of these households have one or more children. OCHA waitlist data also indicates that 23 waitlist households are small, 47 are elderly households (aged 62 and older), and six households indicated they are homeless (including two households with minor children). OCHA data supports the finding that several extremely low-income families need an affordable housing option.

The City of San Clemente does not receive Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds or other HUD funding that may be used for rapid re-housing; therefore, the City does not have information regarding formerly homeless families and individuals receiving rapid rehousing assistance that may be nearing the termination of assistance.
50 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 24
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates:

As indicated above, extremely low-income households that are experiencing severe housing cost burden are most at risk of becoming homeless. The methodology for estimating the number of households that may be at risk of homelessness is also outlined above.

Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness
The origins of involuntary homelessness are primarily rooted in economic factors. As indicated previously, households with extremely low-income and severe housing cost burden have the highest risk of becoming homeless.

Discussion
According to HUD data provided in the Consolidated Plan template, substandard and crowded housing are not significant housing problems in San Clemente. Severe housing cost is the most prevalent housing problem. Most impacted by housing costs appear to be extremely low-income renter and owner households. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, extremely low-income households are at a high risk of becoming homeless. A disability or the need to escape an abusive relationship can also increase the household’s risk of homelessness.
51 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 25
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the needs of any racial or ethnic group that has a disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction
Per HUD, “A disproportionately greater need” exists when the members of a racial or ethnic group at a given income level experience a housing problem at a greater rate (e.g., 10% points or more) than the income level as a whole.” For example, if 60% of all low-income households in a jurisdiction have a housing problem, and 70% of low-income Hispanic households have a housing problem, low-income Hispanics have a disproportionately greater need.

HUD’s Consolidated Plan template does not provide information regarding the City’s current racial and ethnic composition. This information is essential for the context and the evaluation of disproportional housing problems faced by racial or ethnic groups in the City. The data below is provided by the U.S.

Census Bureau (2019-2023 American Community Survey):

Race Total Percentage
White 47,899 75.4%
Black or African American 971 1.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native 179 0.3%
Asian 2,903 4.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders 98 0.2%
Some other race 2,170 3.4%
Two or more races 9,290 14.6%
Total 63,510 100.0%
Ethnicity Total Percentage
Non-Hispanic or Latino 52,194 82.2%
Hispanic or Latino 11,316 17.8%
Total 63,510 100.0%
52 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 26
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 0%-30% of Area Median Income
Table 13 - Disproportionally Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 2,515 575 0
White 2,060 470 0
Black / African American 55 10 0
Asian 10 0 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 295 95 0
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
*The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30% 30%-50% of Area Median Income
Table 14 - Disproportionally Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 2,365 445 0
White 1,650 360 0
Black / African American 0 0 0
Asian 75 20 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 530 55 0
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
*The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30% 53 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 27
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 50%-80% of Area Median Income
Table 15 - Disproportionally Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 2,850 1,405 0
White 2,410 1,135 0
Black / African American 20 0 0
Asian 75 60 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 45 0
Hispanic 305 135 0
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
*The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30% 80%-100% of Area Median Income
Table 16 - Disproportionally Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 1,045 1,105 0
White 815 865 0
Black / African American 0 0 0
Asian 115 15 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 45 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 120 155 0
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
*The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30% Discussion
As previously described, housing cost burden is a prevalent housing problem in San Clemente. Tables 13 through 16 indicate that lower-income San Clemente households are experiencing a housing cost burden regardless of race or ethnicity, with some experiencing a disproportional housing cost burden:
x Extremely Low-Income: Asians (100% impacted)
x Very Low-Income: Hispanics (90.6% impacted)
x Low-Income: Black/African Americans (100% impacted)
x Above Moderate: Asians (88.5%)
54 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 28
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2)
Assess the needs of any racial or ethnic group that has a disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction
The HUD definition of disproportionately greater need is provided above. The HUD data below relates to households that pay more than 50% of income toward housing costs (a severe housing problem). 0%-30% of Area Median Income
Table 17 – Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 2,335 2,335 0
White 1,895 1,895 0
Black / African American 55 55 0
Asian 10 10 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 275 275 0
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50% 30%-50% of Area Median Income
Table 18 – Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 1,750 1,055 0
White 1,185 825 0
Black / African American 0 0 0
Asian 34 60 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 425 160 0
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50% 55 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 29
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 50%-80% of Area Median Income
Table 19 – Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 1,525 2,725 0
White 1,295 2,240 0
Black / African American 10 10 0
Asian 60 75 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 45 0
Hispanic 135 310 0
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50% 80%-100% of Area Median Income
Table 20 – Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 230 1,920 0
White 230 1,450 0
Black / African American 0 0 0
Asian 0 130 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 45 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 0 280 0
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50% Discussion
Tables 17 through 20 indicate that regardless of race or ethnicity, a notable percentage of San Clemente households are experiencing a severe housing problem, with some experiencing a disproportional cost burden:
x Extremely Low-Income: None
x Very Low-Income: Hispanics (72.6% impacted)
x Low-Income: Black/African Americans (50.0% impacted)
x Above Moderate: None
56 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 30
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the needs of any racial or ethnic group that has a disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction:

The HUD definition of disproportionately greater need is provided above. The HUD data below relate specifically to housing cost burden, which is San Clemente's primary housing problem.

Housing Cost Burden
Table 21 – Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens AMI
Housing Cost Burden <=30% 30-50% >50% No / negative
income (not
computed)
Jurisdiction as a whole 14,135 4,580 5,395 280
White 11,400 3,565 4,450 195
Black / African American 165 35 65 0
Asian 435 315 85 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 45 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 45 0 0 0
Hispanic 1,650 615 570 85
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
Discussion:

HUD’s definition of disproportionately greater need is provided above. The HUD data from Table 21 indicates that regardless of race or ethnicity, approximately 56.5% of extremely low-income San Clemente residents have a housing cost burden. Extremely low-income Native American/Alaska Natives and Pacific Islanders are disproportionately impacted; however, it is worth noting that combined, these two cohorts (90 households) represent 0.64% of all extremely low-income households reported by HUD.

Per HUD data, very low-income Asian households are also disproportionately impacted by housing cost burden. In terms of the numbers of affected households, 19,415 lower-income White households and 2,835 Hispanic households have a housing cost burden.
57 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 31
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2) Are there any Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole? According to Census data, Hispanics/Latinos are the largest race or ethnic minority group in San Clemente (17.8% of the City’s population). Asians comprise the second largest minority population –

4.6% of the City’s population. Based on HUD data from the above series of tables, Hispanics/Latinos and Asian households consistently appear to be experiencing housing problems disproportionately to the community as a whole.

If they have needs not identified above, what are those needs? As previously outlined, housing cost is a prevalent housing problem in San Clemente. This problem affects all income categories and race/ethnic groups. Based on HUD data and City staff input, crowded and substandard housing are not a significant issue in San Clemente.

Are any of those racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your community?
In general, minority populations are not concentrated in specific areas of the City. There are no Census Tracts in the City, with a majority of Hispanic or Asian residents. However, there are four Census Tracts within the City, with roughly a quarter of residents being Hispanic/Latino. Similarly, there are four Census Tracts in the City with a concentration of Asian residents roughly double the percentage of Asian residents citywide (see Appendix 3 - Map A and B):

Census Tract Number % Hispanic/Latino
Citywide 17.8%
0421.07 32.3%
0422.05 * 26.0%
0421.14 25.9%
0421.09 23.9%
Census Tract Number % Asian
Citywide 4.6%
0421.05 15.8%
0421.12 14.0%
0421.06 12.0%
0420.63 8.1%
* Shared Census Tract
58 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 32
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b)IntroductionThe City of San Clemente does not operate as a public housing authority; it partners with OCHA. The information provided in the tables below is for all Orange County communities served by OCHA. "Updated Information" is specifically for San Clemente. OCHA provided this information.

The number of vouchers administered by a housing authority fluctuates due to the availability of new vouchers from HUD and changes in housing costs. As of February 2025, OCHA manages over 12,000 rental assistance vouchers/certificates throughout Orange County - 172 are in San Clemente. The data illustrated in the tables below represent County-wide statistics. Below each table is San Clemente-specific information.

Totals in Use
Table 22 - Public Housing by Program Type
Program Type
Certificate ModRehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Projectbased Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
# of units vouchers in use 0 0 0 10,825 0 10,418 187 207 10 *includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)
59 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 33
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Characteristics of Residents
Table 23 – Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Program Type
Certificate ModRehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Projectbased Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Average Annual Income 0 0 0 16,476 0 16,470 17,239 15,594Average length of stay 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 4Average Household size 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 3# Homeless at admission 0 0 0 87 0 5 72 10# of Elderly Program Participants (>62) 0 0 0 4,926 0 4,884 38 3# of Disabled Families 0 0 0 2,163 0 2,075 64 14# of Families requesting accessibility features 0 0 0 10,825 0 10,418 187 207# of HIV/AIDS program participants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0# of DV victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) UPDATED INFORMATION:Demographic information for San Clemente households receiving rental assistance from OCHA as of February 2025.

Average Annual Income $19,114Average length of stay NAAverage Household size 1.4# Homeless at admission 48# of Elderly Program Participants (>62) 108# of Disabled Families 112# of Families requesting accessibility features NA# of HIV/AIDS program participants NA# of DV victims NA 60 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 34
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Race of Residents
Table 24 – Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Program Type
Race Certificate ModRehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Projectbased Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
White 0 0 0 5,857 0 5,528 139 182 6Black/African American 0 0 0 745 0 693 39 10 2Asian 0 0 0 4,128 0 4,107 4 15 2American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0 0 64 0 60 4 0 0Pacific Islander 0 0 0 31 0 30 1 0 0Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home TransitionData Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Updated InformationDemographic information for San Clemente households receiving rental assistance from OCHA as of February 2025.

White 152Black/African American 10Asian 6American Indian/Alaska Native 1Pacific Islander 1Other 2 61 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 35
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Ethnicity of Residents
Table 25 – Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Program Type
Ethnicity Certificate ModRehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Projectbased Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
Hispanic 0 0 0 1,941 0 1,814 34 87 4Not Hispanic 0 0 0 8,884 0 8,604 153 120 6*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home TransitionData Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Updated InformationDemographic information for San Clemente households receiving rental assistance from OCHA as of February 2025.

Hispanic 23Not Hispanic 149
62 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 36
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants and applicants on the waiting list for accessible units:

Not applicable
Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders Not applicable
How do these needs compare to the housing needs of the population at large Not applicable
Discussion
As indicated previously, the City of San Clemente does not own or manage public housing. OCHA serves City residents. San Clemente will continue to work in partnership with OCHA if necessary. These efforts include consultation as part of the preparation of the City’s Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans and assisting OCHA with the certification of their Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plan. 63 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 37
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c)Introduction:Homeless researchers typically use one of two methods to measure homelessness. One way attempts to count all individuals who are homeless on a given day/week (point-in-time counts). The second examines the number of people who are homeless over a given period - period prevalence counts. The Orange County Continuum of Care (OC-CoC) uses the first method for its biennial enumeration of the region’s homeless.

To facilitate the enumeration of the homeless and the allocation of limited resources, the OC-CoC has geographically divided the County into three Service Planning Areas (SPA). Homeless data from the Point-In-Time Survey (PITS) is provided on a county-wide basis by SPA and, to a lesser degree, by jurisdiction. Because there is limited data regarding San Clemente’s homeless population, it is generally assumed that the characteristics of the City’s homeless population are like those of the South SPA. General demographic information regarding the South SPA’s homeless population includes the following:
x Gender: An estimated 34.6% of the County’s homeless are female, 64.4% male, and less than 1.0% identify as transgender or gender non-conforming.
x Race/Ethnicity: The 2024 PITS estimates that 59.7% of the County’s homeless are racially White, 23.9% are “multi-racial or other,” 7.8% are Black/African American, 3.9% are Asian, 3.1% are American Indian/Alaska Native, and 1.6% are Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. An estimated 30.5% are Hispanic/Latino.
x Age: The 2024 PITS estimates that 9.4% of the County’s homeless are under the age of 18, 4.2% are 18-24, 60.4% are 25-54, 19.0% are 55-64, and 7.0% are 65 and older.

If data is not available for the categories "number of persons becoming and exiting homelessness each year" and "number of daysthat persons experience homelessness," describe these categories for each homeless population type (including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth):The OC-CoC conducted a Point-in-Time survey of Orange County’s homeless population as part of a national survey. The 2024 PITS estimated the County’s homeless population to be 7,322 individuals, with 641 in the South County SPA, including 101 homeless in San Clemente. The PITS identifies 3,149 sheltered and 4,173 unsheltered homeless, with 150 sheltered and 491 unsheltered in the South County SPA. For San Clemente, the 2024 PITS identifies 36 sheltered and 65 unsheltered homeless. 64 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 38
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 For the past four years, the City has funded its own street Homeless Outreach Team. The team compiles data based on its daily interaction with the City’s homeless population. Based on this assessment, the City estimates there were 82 homeless people in the City (46 unsheltered and 36 sheltered) at roughly the same time the 2024 point-in-time homeless survey was conducted. Below is information specific to San Clemente’s homeless; however, if no specific San Clemente data is available from City staff, estimates are based on South SPA or countywide demographics.
x Chronic Homeless Individuals: HUD defines a chronically homeless individual as an unaccompanied homeless individual (living in an emergency shelter or is unsheltered) with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a year or more or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. The 2024 PITS estimates there are 877 sheltered and 1,566 unsheltered chronically homeless in the County – approximately 33.4% of the County’s homeless population. Based on this percentage, it is estimated that 27 of San Clemente’s homeless may be chronically homeless. The PITS estimates that 76.6% of the chronically homeless in the South SPA are unsheltered (this estimate is consistent with data from the City’s Outreach Team). It is estimated that there are 21unsheltered, chronically homeless in the City. x Chronically Homeless Families and Families with Children: The 2024 PITS identifies 347 homeless families comprised of 1,128 individuals or approximately 15.4% of the County’s total homeless population. The City’s Homeless Outreach Team indicates there are no or very few homeless families with children in the City since they are able to link families with local shelter/service providers quickly. x Veterans and their Families: The 2024 PITS reports that 4.5% of the County’s homeless are veterans. This translates to an estimated four veterans among San Clemente homeless; however, the City’s Outreach Team prioritizes providing housing and service linkages to homeless veterans, resulting in few or no veterans among the City’s homeless population. x Unaccompanied Youth: The 2024 PITS reports that 4.2% of the County’s homeless are Transitional Aged Youth (TAY). This translates to an estimated three TAY among San Clemente homeless; however, the Outreach Team reports zero youth homeless in the City. x HIV/AIDS: The 2024 PITS estimated that 3.6% of homeless adults in the County are living with HIV/AIDS. Based on this percentage, it is presumed there could be three homeless individuals with HIV/AIDS in the City. However, the City’s Outreach Team conducts a health assessment for all homeless people with whom they engage. It is reported that no homeless in the City have HIV/AIDS.

The 2024 PITS reports that 48.3% of the region’s homeless experienced homelessness for the first time in the past 12 months. The City’s Outreach Team estimates that 37.0% of the City’s homeless have experienced homelessness for the first time in the past 12 months. 65 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 39
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Nature and Extent of Homelessness: (Optional)
Race: Sheltered: Unsheltered (optional)
Ethnicity: Sheltered: Unsheltered (optional)
Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children and the families of veterans.

OCHA provided the City with information regarding San Clemente households that submitted applications for rental assistance as of February 2025. (The last time OCHA accepted applications was September 2023.) OCHA reports that 99 San Clemente households are on the waitlist for housing assistance. Of this number, 17 are households with children, 47 are senior households (age 62 and older), and 47 of the applicants indicate they are disabled. Because homeless veterans are provided with priority for rental housing assistance, OCHA staff indicate that there are no veteran households on the waitlist. OCHA estimates it will take approximately four years to work through the waitlist.

Describe the Nature and Extent of Homelessness by Racial and Ethnic Group.

As previously reported, the 2024 PITS estimates that 59.7% of the County’s homeless are racially White,

23.9% are “multi-racial or other,” 7.8% are Black/African American, 3.9% are Asian, 3.1% are American Indian/Alaska Native, and 1.6% are Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. An estimated 30.5% are Hispanic/Latino. It is reasonable to assume San Clemente’s homeless population mirrors the racial and ethnic composition of the County’s homeless population.

Describe the Nature and Extent of Unsheltered and Sheltered Homelessness.

The 2024 Orange County homeless survey reports 36 sheltered and 65 unsheltered homeless in San Clemente, for a total of 101. For the same period, the City’s Homeless Outreach Team reports 46 unsheltered and 36 sheltered homeless - a total of 82.

Discussion:

The 2024 PITS of Orange County’s homeless estimates there are 101 homeless in San Clemente – 36 are sheltered, and 65 are unsheltered; however, the City’s Homeless Outreach Team has documented there are 82 homeless (46 unsheltered and 36 sheltered). It is assumed that, to a large extent, the characteristics of the homeless in San Clemente mirror those of the County’s South SPA homeless population, as reported in the 2024 homeless survey.

The 2024 PITS also assessed the number of homeless seniors. Survey data indicates that 11.9% of the County’s homeless are seniors, which translates to an estimated 12 elderly homeless individuals in San Clemente. This is consistent with the City data. The City’s Outreach Team concurs with local service providers that homeless seniors are the fastest-growing homeless population in the region. 66 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 40
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b, d) Introduction:

HUD requires that the Consolidated Plan includes a review of relevant data regarding the housing needs of people who have special supportive housing needs but who are not homeless. Certain segments of the population, such as the elderly, disabled, victims of domestic violence, and persons with HIV/AIDS, may experience conditions that make it difficult for them to access affordable housing. Physical or medical conditions, space or supportive service requirements, income, or other factors may impede a household’s ability to obtain decent and affordable housing. This section briefly describes the characteristics of some of these special needs populations in San Clemente.

Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community:

Special needs populations include seniors, people with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, and individuals with HIV/AIDS. Information regarding characteristics is provided below.

What are the housing and supportive service needs of these populations, and how are these needs determined?
x Elderly/Frail Elderly: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 25.8% of San Clemente residents are aged 65 and over (2019-2023 ACS). As detailed in HUD’s housing needs tables (Tables 9 and 10), 2,635 lower-income elderly households are experiencing a housing cost burden – 1,765 are experiencing a severe housing cost burden. As of February 2025, OCHA provides housing assistance to 108 senior households - 47 senior San Clemente households are on OCHA’s housing assistance waitlist. Limited mobility, increased health complications, and fixed income often impact this population, increasing the need for everyday services for the elderly, including nutrition, recreation, transportation, and in-home services.
x Persons with Disabilities: According to the 2019-2023 ACS, approximately 9.8% of San Clemente’s population has one or more disabilities (6,213 residents) - 11.1% of these individuals are living in poverty. Federal laws define a person with a disability as "Any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities….” Examples of disabilities include hearing, mobility, visual impairments, chronic alcoholism, and mental illness. As of February 2025, OCHA provides housing assistance to 112 disabled San Clemente households - 47 disabled San Clemente households are presently on the housing assistance waitlist. Consistent with previous analysis, affordable housing opportunities are a challenge for this population, and while the Orange County Regional Center reports they are able to provide access to support services for residents with disabilities, service gaps and housing affordability present ongoing challenges. x Victims of Domestic Violence: There are many forms of domestic violence: intimidation, physical assault, sexual assault, and other abusive behavior that is part of a pattern of control by a partner against another. Nationwide, it is estimated that one in three women and one in four men experience some form of domestic violence by an intimate partner. The California Department of Justice reports that in 2023, 38 calls for assistance related to domestic violence were reported in 67 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 41
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 San Clemente. For these individuals, temporary safe housing is vital. The 2024 PITS estimates that 671 of Orange County’s homeless population are victims of domestic violence; 408 of these individuals are unsheltered. Housing and support options are available for victims of domestic violence.
x Persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. The Orange County Health Care Agency reports that as of December 31, 2023, 8,181 Orange County residents are living with HIV. Individuals with HIV/AIDS face a variety of challenges, including maintaining stable housing. Safe, affordable housing may be as crucial to their general health as access to healthcare is. The County Health Care Agency typically estimates the number of people living with HIV at a rate of individuals per 100,000 population. 2021 data indicates that 1 to 155 San Clemente residents may be living with HIV. The County also reports that fewer than 10 new HIV diagnoses were made among City residents in 2023. As previously reported, the City’s Homeless Outreach Team has reported no homeless person in San Clemente has HIV/ADS). Persons with HIV/AIDS may be targets of discrimination, including illegal eviction from their homes when their illness is exposed. Fair Housing laws prohibit housing discrimination against people with disabilities, including people with HIV/AIDS.

Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area:

Individuals with HIV/AIDS are considered a special needs group due to their need for health care and supportive services. Persons with HIV/AIDS may face bias and misunderstanding about their illness that may affect their access to housing. Furthermore, they may have trouble balancing their incomes with medical expenses due to their illness, putting them at risk of becoming homeless.

The Orange County Health Care Agency estimated that as of December 2023, 8,181 persons were living with HIV/AIDS in Orange County – fewer than 150 in San Clemente. In 2023, 266 new cases were diagnosed in Orange County. The County reports the following demographic data for individuals diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in 2023:
x Gender: 72.2% male, 18.0% female, and 3.8% transgender female x Race/Ethnicity: 50.8% Hispanic, 30.5% White, 10.5% Asian, and 6.0% Black x Age (by percentage at the age of diagnosis): 0 to 18 – 0%, 19 to 25 – 18.4%, 26 to 35 – 33.1%, 36 to 45 – 24.8%, 46 to 55 – 13.9%, 56 and older – 8.6%
x The six cities with the highest number of people living with HIV/AIDS (in order): Santa Ana, Anaheim, Orange, Garden Grove, Costa Mesa, and Irvine
There is no HIV/AIDS-dedicated housing in San Clemente; however, the County’s Health Care Agency has developed a brochure that provides comprehensive information regarding supportive services, shortterm and long-term housing, and permanent housing programs for individuals with HIV/AIDS (www.ochealthinfo.com/sites/hca/files/import/data/files/81612.pdf). 68 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 42
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 If the PJ will establish a preference for a HOME TBRA activity for persons with a specific category of disabilities (e.g., persons with HIV/AIDS or chronic mental illness), describe their unmet need for housing and services needed to narrow the gap in benefits and services received by such persons. (See 24 CFR 92.209(c)(2) (ii)) The City is not a Participating Jurisdiction in the HOME program.

Discussion:

Certain segments of the City’s population have special needs that may require unique housing options and services. These special needs groups include senior and frail elderly, the disabled, victims of domestic violence, and individuals with HIV/AIDS. While housing and service programs are available to these special needs populations, additional resources may be needed to address individual needs. 69 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 43
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities:

Overall, the City's public facilities are in good condition; however, upgrading of aging or deteriorating improvements may be necessary. While most City public facilities have been constructed or upgraded to meet ADA accessibility requirements, the City will continue to identify additional facilities that may need ADA upgrades as regulations are modified. These and other public improvements may be addressed with CDBG funds.

How were these needs determined?
Public facility needs were determined through public input and consultation with City staff.

Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements:

Some of San Clemente’s original neighborhoods represent some of Orange County’s oldest communities. The public infrastructure within these areas requires upgrading. Planned improvements to be considered for CDBG funding during the next five years will generally include the following:
x Street Improvements: reconstruction of street pavement, streetscape improvements, medians, and replacement or installation of sidewalks
x ADA Improvements: sidewalk and curb ramp improvements to comply with ADA regulations x Other eligible public infrastructure improvements
How were these needs determined?
Public improvement needs were determined through public input and consultation with City staff.

Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services:

Numerous public, social, and faith-based agencies serve San Clemente’s residents. These organizations address the social, health, and education needs of residents. The demand for public and social services typically exceeds available resources, especially for social safety net services.

How were these needs determined?
Public service needs were determined through public input and consultation with City staff and the City’s Human Services Committee.
70 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 44
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Housing Market Analysis
MA-05 Overview
Housing Market Analysis Overview:

The purpose of the Market Analysis is to provide a picture of the environment in which San Clemente will administer its CDBG programs over the term of the Consolidated Plan. In conjunction with the Needs Assessment, the Market Analysis provides the basis for the Strategic Plan and the programs and projects to be undertaken with HUD resources. Most of the data tables in this section are populated by default with data from the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), a special tabulation of housing data produced by the Census Bureau for HUD. Additional data is derived from the American Community Survey (ACS) and other current data sources. The Market Analysis will also examine barriers to affordable housing, including impediments to fair housing choice. 71 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 45
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2)
Introduction
HUD defines a housing unit as a house, an apartment, or a single room occupied as a separate living quarter or, if vacant, intended for occupancy as a separate living quarter. This section of the Consolidated Plan addresses the housing characteristics of the housing supply in San Clemente, including type, tenure, age, condition, costs, affordability, and availability.

Based on data from Table 23, the majority of San Clemente’s housing stock is comprised of one-unit structures (approximately 69%). Data from the State of California indicates that as of January 1, 2024, the City has a total of 26,794 housing units. Consistent with HUD’s data, the State estimates that 68% of the City’s housing stock is constructed as single attached or detached units. According to Table 24,

65.8% of the City’s housing units are occupied by owners and 34.2% by renters.

All residential properties by number of units
Table 23 – Residential Properties by Unit Number
Property Type Number %
1-unit detached structure 15,860 58%
1-unit, attached structure 3,065 11%
2-4 units 4,000 15%
5-19 units 2,330 9%
20 or more units 1,645 6%
Mobile Home, boat, RV, van, etc. 395 1%
Total 27,295 100%
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
Unit Size by Tenure
Table 24 – Unit Size by Tenure
Owners Renters
Number % Number %
No bedroom 20 0% 680 8%
1 bedroom 215 1% 1,660 20%
2 bedrooms 2,435 15% 3,490 42%
3 or more bedrooms 13,355 83% 2,515 30%
Total 16,025 99% 8,345 100%
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
72 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 46
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Describe the number and targeting (income level/type of family served) of units assisted with federal, state, and local programs.

According to the City’s Housing Element, there are 508 affordable housing units in 10 different housing project developments in San Clemente; 266 of these units are for lower-income seniors, six are for homeless youths, and the balance is for lower-income families.

Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing inventory for any reason, such as the expiration of Section 8 contracts.

One affordable housing project (six units) is at risk of converting to market-rate housing in 2025.

Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population? The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) undertakes a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) to quantify the anticipated need for housing within a five-county region, including Orange County. California General Plan law requires each city and county to have land zoned to accommodate its fair share of this regional housing need calculated by SCAG. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) allocates a numeric regional housing goal to the SCAG figures, which are then mandated to be distributed among the cities and counties in the region. The primary purpose of the RHNA is to ensure a fair distribution of housing among cities and counties within the SCAG region so that every community provides a mix of housing for all economic segments. The housing allocation targets are not building requirements; they are planning goals for each community to accommodate through appropriate planning policies and land use regulations. Allocation targets are intended to ensure that adequate sites and zoning are made available to address anticipated housing demand during the planning period. The distribution of housing needs by income category for each jurisdiction is adjusted to avoid an overconcentration of lower-income households in any community.

For the current planning period (2021 through 2029), the City’s RHNA allocation is 982 housing units.

According to an April 2, 2024, article in the Voice of OC (“How Are Orange County’s Cities Doing At Building Affordable Housing?”), “the last three years show a robust production in above moderate housing and progress in building affordable homes with a big boost due to motel conversions to permanent supportive housing.” According to the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) Housing Element Implementation and APR Data Dashboard, the construction of 19,790 housing units has been completed in Orange County during the first three years of the current Housing Element Cycle (2021 through 2023). Over 77.5% of completed units are “Above 73 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 47
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Moderate Income Units;” 9.7% are “Low-Income Units” (1,927 units, including 34 Extremely Low-Income units). This same data source reports that 238 housing units have been completed in San Clemente for the same three-year period – 11 of these units are “Low Income Units.” HUD data from Table 9 estimates that 7,524 lower-income San Clemente households are experiencing a housing cost burden. Based on the current supply of housing units, there appears to be a gap in the number of affordable units for many residents, especially lower-income households.

Describe the need for specific types of housing:

As previously outlined in the Housing Needs Assessment, housing costs in the region, and specifically the City, present an issue for many households regardless of size or tenure. Among lower-income households, senior and small-related households appear to be experiencing housing cost challenges at a higher rate.

Discussion
The Housing Element establishes San Clemente housing goals based on SCAG’s analysis of regional housing needs. The Housing Element established a strategy to meet these goals, and the City has initiated actions to address housing needs. Despite these actions, the Housing Needs Assessment indicates that many lower-income San Clemente residents are experiencing a housing cost burden, and affordable housing options remain a challenge.
74 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 48
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) Introduction
According to the Los Angeles Almanac, the median Orange County home price in December 2024 was $1,362,000. According to Zillow.com, in December 2024, the “Home Value Index” for San Clemente was $1,644,639. Zillow’s Home Value Index factors sales transactions, tax assessments, and home details such as square footage and location. Zillow’s Home Value for San Clemente represents a 76.6% increase from the 2020 Median Home Value listed in Table 25. For rents, Zillow reports the San Clemente median rent in February 2025 was $4,800.

Cost of Housing
Table 25 – Cost of Housing
Base Year: 2009 Most Recent Year: 2020 % Change
Median Home Value 758,300 931,400 23%
Median Contract Rent 1,634 1,843 13%
Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2016-2020 ACS (Most Recent Year) Table 26 - Rent Paid
Rent Paid Number %
Less than $500 455 5.5%
$500-999 345 4.1%
$1,000-1,499 1,715 20.5%
$1,500-1,999 2,700 32.3%
$2,000 or more 3,140 37.6%
Total 8,355 100.0%
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
Housing Affordability
Table 27 – Housing Affordability
Number of Units affordable to
Households earning
Renter Owner
30% HAMFI 190 No Data
50% HAMFI 625 110
80% HAMFI 3,945 235
100% HAMFI No Data 343
Total 4,760 688
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
75 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 49
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Monthly Rent
Table 28 – Monthly Rent
Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (no
bedroom)
1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
Fair Market Rent $2,200 $2,344 $2,783 $3,769 $4,467
High HOME Rent $1,381 $1,479 $1,776 $2,051 $2,288
Low HOME Rent $1,826 $1,958 $2,352 $2,708 $3,001
Market Rent * $2,300 $2,650 $3,750 $6,000 $9,167
Data Source: HUD FMR and HOME Rents * Zillow.com
Is there sufficient housing for households at all income levels? Based on the HUD data tables above, it appears there is a limited supply of housing units affordable to lower-income households. With a median home price of $1,644,639 and a median rent of $4,800, it is evident there is an insufficient supply of affordable housing for households at most income levels. The 2024-2025 Community Indicators, produced by the Orange County Business Council, indicates a minimum Qualifying Income of $349,200 is needed to afford a “traditional median priced home… Only 11% of county residents could afford a median priced home in Q1 2024.” The 2024-2025 Community Indicators also finds that “[t]he hourly wage needed to afford a one-bedroom apartment in Orange County rose from $40.63 in 2023 to $45.08 in 2024, an 11.0 percent increase on top of a previous 10.9 percent increase between 2022 and 2023.” To afford a median-price one-bedroom apartment in 2024, an Orange County resident would need to make $45.08 per hour – equivalent to an annual income of $93,700. A minimum wage worker in Orange County would have to work 113 hours a week to afford a one-bedroom apartment, 134 hours to afford a two-bedroom unit, and 181 hours to afford a threebedroom” [2024-2025 Orange County Community Indicators, pages 81-87].

How is the affordability of housing likely to change, considering changes to home values and/or rents?
According to The State of the Nation’s Housing 2024, a report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim metro area had the fourth highest median income housing cost ratio out of 385 US metro areas. As of 2024, the region’s median home price was

10.4 times its median income, a figure that has doubled over the past forty years.” The 2024-2025 Community Indicators reports that “Orange County’s high home prices have driven a decrease in homeownership rates by encouraging residents to rent or even relocate to more affordable areas. The county’s overall homeownership rate fell from 56.5 percent in 2021 to 55.8 in 2022, a decline of 0.7 percentage points. Rental rates had a corresponding increase from 44.2 percent to 43.5 percent.” As the Federal Reserve continues to adjust interest rate policy to control inflation, mortgage rates will likely remain elevated. Future mortgage interest rate fluctuations coupled with threats of property insurance rate increases or cancelations will likely fuel the current trend of fewer homeowners and an increase in renter households.
76 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 50
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 How do HOME rents / Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How might this impact your strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing? The City of San Clemente is not a participating jurisdiction in HUD’s HOME program; however, HUD’s current rent limits for the program are listed in Table 28. Comparing these rent levels to rents listed on certain online housing services reveals that significant subsidies or other concessions would be necessary to create units that are affordable to lower-income households.

Discussion
Orange County remains one of the nation’s most expensive housing markets. Data indicates that median home sales prices and monthly rents are out of reach of many lower-income and moderate-income households. Current economic trends also indicate that housing costs will most likely remain out of reach of many of the region’s residents.
77 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 51
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a) Introduction
In general, San Clemente’s housing stock is in good condition and well maintained; nonetheless, HUD requires that the City evaluate its condition as part of the Consolidated Plan.

Describe the jurisdiction's definition of "standard condition" and "substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation":
x Substandard Condition: A dwelling unit that contains a circumstance that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants. The conditions that make a property “substandard” are defined in Section 17920.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.
x Substandard Condition but suitable for Rehabilitation: For purposes of the CDBG program, substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation means that the cost of remedying all substandard conditions plus the current value of the property does not exceed the afterrehabilitation value of the property. x Housing Problems: As defined by HUD:

1. Lack of complete kitchen facilities or lack of complete plumbing facilities

2. More than one person per room

3. Cost burden greater than 30%
Condition of Units
Table 29 - Condition of Units
Condition of Units Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
With one selected Condition 5,675 35% 4,205 50%
With two selected Conditions 140 1% 410 5%
With three selected Conditions 25 0% 0 0%
With four selected Conditions 0 0% 0 0%
No selected Conditions 10,190 64% 3,745 45%
Total 16,030 100% 8,360 100%
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
78 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 52
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Year Unit Built
Table 30 – Year Unit Built
Year Unit Built Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
2000 or later 4,455 28% 1,065 13%
1980-1999 5,400 34% 2,335 28%
1950-1979 5,650 35% 4,565 55%
Before 1950 515 3% 395 5%
Total 16,020 100% 8,360 101%
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Table 31 – Risk of Lead-Based Paint
Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number %
Total Number of Units Built Before 1980 6,165 38% 4,960 59% Housing Units built before 1980 with children present 1,900 12% 1,520 18% Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS (Total Units) 2016-2020 CHAS (Units with Children present) Vacant Units
Table 32 - Vacant Units
Suitable for
Rehabilitation
Not Suitable for
Rehabilitation
Total
Vacant Units NA
Abandoned Vacant Units NA
REO Properties NA
Abandoned REO Properties NA
Updated Information
According to the State of California Department of Labor, the City's vacancy rate was 8.1% as of January 1, 2024. There are limited data sources regarding vacant units and REO properties within the City.

According to RealtyTrac, as of February 2025, 27 properties in San Clemente were in some stage of foreclosure (default, auction, or bank-owned).

Need for Owner and Rental Rehabilitation
Based on data from Table 30, approximately 38% of San Clemente’s owner housing stock was built before 1980. Generally, homes built within the last 30 years are in good shape, with minor repairs required. Homes begin to show age after 30 years and can require significant maintenance and even extensive rehabilitation. Data from the Needs Assessment indicates that approximately 3,665 lowerincome homeowners are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. City-funded housing 79 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 53
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 rehabilitation assistance can help these households maintain and improve their homes without incurring additional housing costs. If not for the housing rehabilitation assistance program, many low-income seniors would be unable to complete deferred repairs on their older properties.

Table 30 also indicates that approximately 59% of the City’s rental housing stock was built before 1980.

As noted above, housing of this vintage can benefit from rehabilitation assistance programs to address health and safety issues. Current tax regulations provide owners of rental properties with various incentives and opportunities to maintain their investments.

Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low or Moderate Income Families with LBP Hazards
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a young child's exposure to lead can result in elevated blood lead levels (BLL), which can increase the risk of damage to the brain and nervous system, slow physical growth and development, hearing and speech problems, and learning and behavior problems. Consequently, the United States banned lead-based paint in 1978; however, lead hazards may still exist in the community in the form of surfaces with deteriorated lead-based paint or pottery and food produced outside of the U.S. The CDC and the State of California Department of Public Health report that in 2022, 106 San Clemente children under the age of six had observable BLL. Of these, none had a BLL of 3.5 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL); a BLL of greater than 3.5 μg/d is the BLL level the CDC considers “high.”
Table 31 indicates that 11,125 housing units in San Clemente were constructed before 1979; however, CDC and State data suggest that lead-based paint hazards may not be a significant issue in San Clemente. The City’s housing rehabilitation program is designed to identify and address lead-based paint issues as part of the project evaluation process. All units constructed before 1979 are tested for leadbased paint. Based on prior year testing, lead paint is not typically found in these older units.

Discussion
In general, San Clemente’s housing stock is well maintained and in good to excellent condition; however, it is important to note that a significant percentage of the housing stock is over 30 years old. After 30 years, homes may begin to require substantial maintenance and even extensive rehabilitation (e.g., replacement roofs and re-plumbing). Additionally, many residences were constructed before 1978 and thus may have lead-based paint. San Clemente has established a housing rehabilitation program to assist lower-income homeowners in improving their homes and, if necessary, removing lead-based paint hazards.
80 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 54
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b)IntroductionThere is no public housing in San Clemente. OCHA operates the rental assistance program within the City.Totals Number of Units Table 33 – Total Number of Units by Program Type
Program Type
Certificate ModRehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Projectbased Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
# of units vouchers available 9,925 879 1,669 0# of accessible units*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home TransitionData Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Describe the supply of public housing developments:Not applicable Describe the number and physical condition of public housing units in the jurisdiction, including those that are participating in an approved Public Housing Agency Plan:Not applicable 81 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 55
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Public Housing Condition
Table 34 - Public Housing Condition
Public Housing Development Average Inspection Score
NA NA
Describe the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing units in the jurisdiction:

Not applicable
Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living environment of lowand moderate-income families residing in public housing:

Not applicable
Discussion:

There are no public housing units in San Clemente
82 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 56
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c)IntroductionAs previously discussed, the OC-CoC conducts a biennial point-in-time count of the County’s homeless population and an inventory of shelter beds. Information presented in Table 35 identifies homeless shelter beds in San Clemente.

Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households
Table 35 - Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households Emergency Shelter Beds Transitional
Housing Beds
Permanent Supportive Housing
Beds
Year-Round Beds
(Current & New)
Voucher /
Seasonal /
Overflow Beds
Current & New Current & New Under
Development
Households with Adult(s) & Child(ren) 86 9Households with Only Adults 10 5 8 35Chronically Homeless HouseholdsVeteransUnaccompanied Youth 83 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 57
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Describe mainstream services, such as health, mental health, and employment services, to the extent those services are used to complement services targeted to homeless persons Aside from outreach and engagement activity, the City of San Clemente does not provide direct services for the homeless; however, it does fund nonprofit agencies that provide housing and support services for the homeless. Case managers at these service agencies work closely with clients to identify and qualify households for appropriate mainstream services and resources. Examples of mainstream services include veterans housing vouchers, veteran medical services, Medical/Medicare, SSI, and TANF. The City’s Homeless Outreach Team provides similar linkages for employment and financial assistance.

List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons, particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth. If the services and facilities are listed on screen SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure or screen MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services, describe how these facilities and services specifically address the needs of these populations.

As indicated in Table 35, there are 100 emergency shelter beds (including five emergency housing vouchers) and 18 transitional housing beds in the City of San Clemente. Most of these shelter beds are targeted at homeless families with children (96 beds). It is important also to note that 54 of the total shelter beds are reserved for victims of domestic violence (42 emergency and 12 transitional beds managed by Laura’s House). The OC-CoC also reports there are 35 permanent supportive housing beds for chronically homeless individuals in the City; however, these units are identified as scatter-site, so it is likely all beds are not located in San Clemente but throughout the South SPA. 84 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 58
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d) Introduction
HUD requires that the Consolidated Plan describe, to the extent information is available, facilities and services that are available to assist people who are not homeless but who have special needs.

Including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, public housing residents, and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify and describe their supportive housing needs
x Senior and Frail Elderly: San Clemente has several skilled nursing and residential care facilities.

Based on consultation with the Council on Aging - Southern California, it has been determined that there are 448 residential care beds in 21 facilities in San Clemente. The bulk of these facilities are six-bed facilities operating in residential neighborhoods. Three larger facilities offer 80, 130, and 131 beds. According to OCHA’s “Affordable Rental Housing List,” there are two affordable senior housing developments in the City with 147 total units; 99 are affordable for lower-income seniors. OCHA also reports that 108 San Clemente Elderly households receive federal rental assistance as of February 2025.
x Disabled: According to OCHA’s “Affordable Rental Housing List,” there are two affordable housing developments (18 units) exclusively for individuals with disabilities in the City. OCHA also reports that 112 San Clemente disabled households receive federal rental assistance as of February 2025.

Both federal and state regulations require that most new housing developments include a certain percentage of units that are accessible for individuals with disabilities. The City enforces these requirements as applicable.
x Group Homes/Quarters: The State reports that as of January 2024, there are 279 San Clemente residents living in group housing. Examples of group quarters include homes for the mentally disabled and physically disabled, seniors, and those recovering from substance addiction. In recent years, some recovery homes have had negative impacts on residential neighborhoods. Due to federal and state regulations, the City’s ability to take certain enforcement actions is limited; nonetheless, the City continues to monitor and seek avenues to address and mitigate neighborhood impacts caused by problematic operators.
x HIV/AIDS Housing: As previously outlined, there are no shelters or permanent housing units for persons with HIV/AIDS in San Clemente.
x Public Housing Residents: San Clemente does not have public housing. As of February 2025, 172 households in San Clemente were receiving a rental housing voucher or certificate from OCHA.

Describe programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing
The OC-CoC is responsible for developing the region’s Plan to End Homelessness. This plan will include the County’s discharge plan. The discharge plan will help ensure individuals leaving institutional or 85 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 59
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 medical facilities do not exit directly into homelessness. The plan will outline protocols for discharge from public facilities (such as jails) and public systems (such as the foster care system). It will establish protocols to identify and assess those at risk of homelessness and link them to needed services.

Additionally, most homeless service providers involved with shelter operations are required to develop a management plan and protocols to ensure clients of respective programs receive appropriate housing and services at discharge. Furthermore, the regional CoC Coordinated Entry System will help assess the vulnerability of individuals leaving institutions and link the neediest with appropriate housing and support services.

Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. 91.315(e)
The City will continue to support various organizations that provide services to people with special needs, including the agencies listed below. However, not all programs listed have received or will receive financial assistance from the City.
x CUSD Family Resource Center & Learning Links Program: A variety of services for families with children under five years old
x South County Outreach: Services include food, rental assistance, and job search. Transitional apartments are available to qualified applicants - including San Clemente residents x Camino Health Services and Dental Clinic: Low-cost primary and general medical services available to low-income and indigent San Clemente residents x Family Assistance Ministries: Services include food rent and utility assistance. A continuum of shelter and housing for homeless families with children is also available to San Clemente residents
x Vocational Visions: Various services for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities
For entitlement/consortia grantees: Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. (91.220(2)) San Clemente is not a HOME program participating jurisdiction. 86 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 60
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e)
Negative Effects of Public Policies on Affordable Housing and Residential Investment The City has little control over market variables that impact the cost of housing, such as the cost of land and construction supplies, materials, and labor. The City’s Housing Element does identify several “constraints” that may act as barriers to the creation of affordable housing opportunities in the City. x Land Use Controls: The City’s General Plan is the policy document that establishes the location and amount of land that will be allocated to residential development and establishes the intensity of development (in terms of unit densities and the total number of units). In general, higher densities allow developers to take advantage of economies of scale, reduce the per-unit cost of land and improvements, and reduce development costs. Reasonable density standards ensure the opportunity for higher-density residential uses to be developed within a community; therefore, San Clemente’s development standards do not unduly restrict development. x Zoning: Zoning is the primary tool for implementing the Land Use Element. It is designed to protect and promote public health, safety, and welfare. Zoning regulates the use and development of residential parcels, which can impact the cost of housing development. Since zoning is essential for promoting design standards and enhancing residents' quality of life, it is not considered a hindrance to developing quality housing. x Building Code: Building and safety codes are adopted to preserve public health and safety and ensure the construction of safe and decent housing. Codes and standards have the potential to increase the cost of housing construction; however, these regulations provide minimum standards that must be complied with in order to ensure the construction of safe and accessible housing.
x Planning and Development Fees: The State allows local jurisdictions to assess planning and development fees to recoup costs for essential services and infrastructure that are needed for the development of new housing. To enact an impact fee, State law requires that the City demonstrate the “nexus” between the development and the impact being mitigated by the fee.

The fee must be proportional to the impact caused by the development. Development impact fees are a cost factor in housing development. According to the Housing Element, the City’s building and engineering impact fees total approximately $20,000 per unit. This amount does not include third-party assessments for transportation and schools. x Permit and Processing Procedures: The processing time required to obtain approval of development entitlements and building permits is often cited as contributing to construction costs. In development parlance, “time is money,” and developers can incur significant holding costs while waiting out a delay. The City’s development review process is designed to accommodate housing development applications of various levels of complexity, which require different entitlements and does not “unduly constrain housing.” x Environmental Review: State and federal laws (e.g., the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act) require an environmental review of projects and programs. Costs and delays resulting from the environmental review process are added to the 87 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 61
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 cost of developing housing in the form of carrying costs, which a buyer or tenant ultimately pays.
x Coastal Zone: The Coastal Zone is generally defined as the land area that extends 1,000 yards inland from the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. The Coastal Zone comprises 2.79 square miles of the City’s 18.45 square miles (15% of the total land area). The Coastal Act implements many development restrictions, including a mandate to replace any low-income housing demolished within the Coastal Zone. A fee may be paid in lieu of replacing a unit. The California Coastal Act requires each local government lying wholly or partly within the Coastal Zone to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP). San Clemente has a certified LCP but does not currently have a certified Implementation Plan; therefore, in addition to local approvals, development proposals within the Coastal Zone must also be approved by the California Coastal Commission. This additional process can add time and cost to development and may act as a deterrent to developers of affordable housing.
88 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 62
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f)IntroductionAccording to the data from Table 37, San Clemente has a workforce of 33,155 individuals and an unemployment rate of 4.37%. The California Employment Development Department pegged the City’s December 2024 unemployment rate at 3.5%. This rate was lower than the 3.8% recorded for all of Orange County and the 5.2% recorded for California for the same period.Economic Development Market AnalysisBusiness Activity Table 36 - Business Activity
Business by Sector Number of
Workers
Number of
Jobs
Share of
Workers
%
Share of Jobs
%
Jobs less
workers
%
Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 170 7 1 0 -1Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 3,573 3,542 15 15 0Construction 1,564 2,829 7 12 5Education and Health Care Services 3,494 2,501 15 11 -4Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 2,002 1,146 8 5 -3Information 758 136 3 1 -3Manufacturing 1,861 2,229 8 9 2Other Services 866 870 4 4 0Professional, Scientific, Management Services 3,291 2,427 14 10 -3Public Administration 0 0 0 0 0Retail Trade 2,523 2,190 10 9 -1Transportation and Warehousing 580 85 2 0 -2Wholesale Trade 1,526 1,479 6 6 0Total 22,208 19,441 -- -- --Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS (Workers), 2020 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (Jobs) 89 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 63
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Labor Force
Table 37 - Labor Force
Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 33,155
Civilian Employed Population 16 years and over 31,685
Unemployment Rate 4.37
Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 7.89
Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 3.33
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
Table 38 – Occupations by Sector
Occupations by Sector Number of People
Management, business, and financial 11,300
Farming, fisheries, and forestry occupations 635
Service 2,215
Sales and office 7,780
Construction, extraction, maintenance and repair 1,780
Production, transportation and material moving 1,145
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
Travel Time
Table 39 - Travel Time
Travel Time Number Percentage
< 30 Minutes 13,438 52%
30-59 Minutes 9,326 36%
60 or More Minutes 3,281 13%
Total 26,045 100%
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
Education:

Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 16 and Older) Table 40 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status
Educational Attainment In Labor Force
Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor
Force
Less than high school graduate 1,250 50 370
High school graduate (includes equivalency) 2,950 170 960 Some college or Associate's degree 7,640 485 2,530
Bachelor's degree or higher 14,195 440 2,925
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
90 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 64
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Educational Attainment by Age
Table 41 - Educational Attainment by Age
Age
18–24 yrs 25–34 yrs 35–44 yrs 45–65 yrs 65+ yrs
Less than 9th grade 60 145 405 420 330
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 240 95 105 500 310
High school graduate, GED, or
alternative 895 845 910 2,325 1,930
Some college, no degree 1,800 1,765 1,395 4,290 2,340
Associate's degree 310 620 710 1,960 1,605
Bachelor's degree 540 2,190 2,865 6,140 2,920
Graduate or professional degree 105 1,065 1,410 3,945 2,775 Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
Educational Attainment – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Table 42 – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months
Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Less than high school graduate 38,815
High school graduate (includes equivalency) 42,988
Some college or Associate's degree 88,926
Bachelor's degree 199,050
Graduate or professional degree 195,279
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment sectors within your jurisdiction?
According to Table 36, four major business activity sectors account for 54% of total “workers” and 45% of total “jobs.”
x Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations: 15% of Workers and 15% of Jobs x Education and Health Care Services: 15% of Workers and 11% of Jobs x Professional, Scientific, Management Services: 14% of Workers and 10% of Jobs x Retail: 10% of Workers and 9% of Jobs
This data corresponds with a list of the City’s top five employers:
x Capistrano Unified School District
x The Fisherman’s Restaurants
x Albertsons
x Ralphs
x ICU Medical
91 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 65
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Describe the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community:

The Economic Development Element, a component of the City’s General Plan, is San Clemente’s primary economic development strategy document. This document establishes “goals and policies to guide decisions about public and private investment in and opportunities for improved quality of life through economic growth.”
As evident by HUD's data tables, San Clemente has a diverse workforce, with prominence in education/health care, professional, retail, and arts/entertainment-related jobs. The City’s economic development strategy is focused on enhancing an environment to support growth in these employment sectors. This will be accomplished by supporting activities that enhance retail districts and centers, creating an environment to attract visitors, and improving technology and communications infrastructure to meet the needs of local businesses and residents. With respect to public infrastructure, the Economic Development Element supports the use of business improvement districts for various business/commercial areas. Within these districts, the need for physical improvements, such as parking facilities, landscaping, lighting, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities, will be assessed. Additionally, improvements to the City’s communications and information technology infrastructure are needed to remain a competitive location for business development.

Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or regional public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development, business support or infrastructure these changes may create.

Two significant economic events have occurred in the City that may impact job growth within the community.

In 2016, Saddleback Memorial Medical Center in San Clemente closed, resulting in the loss of approximately 100 full-time and part-time jobs (primarily healthcare service jobs). Presently, the site is being redeveloped into a senior housing and medical center campus. The development will include 250 senior housing units, with approximately 20% of the units designated as affordable. A 7,500-square-foot health and urgent care center in a separate building will also be constructed.

In November 2015, phase one of a 500,000-square-foot outlet shopping center opened. The project has generated significant annual sales tax revenue for the City and created hundreds of jobs. Phase two of the project includes a hotel and conference center with additional retail and restaurant space.

Additional office and commercial/retail development is also planned for the outer ring of the center.

The entitlements for some of these improvements have been approved; however, the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent economic turmoil have delayed several aspects of the project.

Construction of the Providence Health Care Center is close to completion, and the other phase two improvements are slated to begin. A second medical office (Hoag Medical) is also under construction at a different retail center.
92 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 66
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment opportunities in the jurisdiction?
One of the core initiatives of the Orange County Business Council is to “[e]nsure a pipeline of skilled workers for Orange County’s diverse businesses and help provide resources leading to employee retention.” The Business Council’s 2024 annual report indicates that a skilled workforce is needed to keep pace with new industries, such as space travel and electric vehicles, that are headquartered in Orange County and to support established business sectors, such as medical device development and manufacturing, tourism, and health care. The City has developed an economic development strategy to enhance “San Clemente’s quality of life by providing local goods and services and expanding employment and business opportunities.” The City’s Economic Development Element refers to the Centennial General Plan Strategic Implementation Program (SIP) for its action plan. The SIP indicates that the City will partner with regional business support agencies, such as the Orange County Workforce Investment Board and the Orange County Small Business Development Center, to ensure businesses in San Clemente are aware of and have access to workforce recruitment and training services, and to ensure residents are aware of and have access to job search and business start-up training.

Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by Workforce Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan.

As indicated above, the City’s Economic Development Element implementing measures (via the SIP) include support for regional business agencies, such as the Orange County Workforce Investment Board and the Orange County Small Business Development Center. The SIP also indicates that City staff will meet with higher education administrators, trade school organizations, and local businesses to ascertain the best opportunities to attract an educational or occupational training anchor in the City’s Professional Business Overlay area.

Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)?
No
If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with the Consolidated Plan? If not, describe other local/regional plans or initiatives that impact economic growth.

In addition to the initiatives and action steps listed above, the Economic Development Element/SIP also indicates the following will be implemented:
x Continue to support and promote an annual business awards program to recognize San Clemente’s outstanding businesses
93 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 67
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 x Implement and update the Technology Strategic Plan as needed to reflect new technology initiatives and technological advancements while adapting to changing business needs and financial conditions.
x Develop Geographic Information System solutions for public engagement, spatial analysis, mapping, and visualization.
x Update the economic development strategy, prioritizing resources that achieve a jobs-housing balance, attract visitors, and create shopping and entertainment districts that generate retail sales and jobs.

Discussion
As outlined previously, San Clemente has a low unemployment rate; nonetheless, the City is actively involved in efforts to expand employment opportunities for residents and improve the local business environment. The Economic Development Element is the City’s primary document regarding goals and policies to implement this strategy.
94 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 68
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion
Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration")
Based on data from the Housing Needs Assessment, it has been determined housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden are the most prevalent housing problem in San Clemente. Based on an evaluation of HUD data, it has been determined that in three Census Tracts, the majority of residents have a housing cost burden.
x 0422.06: 53.4% of residents have a housing cost burden (this Census Tract is shared with the adjacent jurisdiction)
x 0421.05: 53.3% of residents have a housing cost burden x 0421.07: 52.8% of residents have a housing cost burden See Appendix 3 - Map C.

Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration") For this discussion, a concentration of racial or ethnic minorities is defined as a Census Tract where the percentage of members of a racial or ethnic group is at least 10% points greater than the citywide percentage.

As detailed in the Housing Needs Assessment, Asians and Hispanics comprise the community’s largest minority populations – 4.6% and 17.8%, respectively.
x Asians: Census Tract 0421.05 has the largest concentration of Asian residents (15.8%) and a concentration of residents experiencing a housing cost burden (53.3%). x Hispanics: Census Tract 0421.07 has the largest concentration of Hispanic/Latino residents (32.3%) and a concentration of residents experiencing housing cost burden (52.8%).

What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods? The Census Tract with a Hispanic/Latino concentration is within the City’s CDBG-eligible area. This Tract is located just south of the 5 Freeway near Camino Real in the central section of San Clemente. Housing in this area is predominantly apartments and condominiums, with some single-family homes.

Neighborhoods in the tract are among the City’s oldest, with approximately 200 properties built in the 1920s. The area is also one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in the City, with a mix of owner-occupied and rental units.

With respect to the Asian concentration tract, the identified tract is not within the City’s CDBG-eligible area. The tract is the southmost in the City, boarding the County Line and U.S.M.C Base Camp Pendelton. Interstate 5 and retail/commercial uses along El Camino Real act as the westerly border. An 95 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 69
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 affluent private residential community is the core of this tract; however, several multi-family apartment complexes buttress against the gated community.

Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods? Census Tract 0421.05: This area of the City is also well known for its access to world-famous surfing spots (Trestles and Old Man’s). San Clemente and San Mateo State Parks are situated within this tract.

Otherwise, the area is primarily residential.

Census Tract 0421.07: The area has several community assets. Maxx Berg Park is the neighborhood focal point, the location of many community and neighborhood events. Adjacent to the park is Las Palmas Elementary School. This school is also an important asset to the neighborhood, serving as the staging point for many community and educational initiatives. Other neighborhood resources include the Boys and Girls Club, St. Clements By the Sea Church, and the Capistrano Unified School District Family Resource Center.

Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas? Census Tract 0421.05 is in the older section of San Clemente. The area is built out and has limited development opportunities; however, there may be opportunities to rehabilitate existing structures.

Census Tract 0421.07 is in the older section of San Clemente. The area is built out and has limited development opportunities; however, there may be opportunities to rehabilitate existing structures.

Additionally, this area has been identified for the installation of public improvements, such as sidewalks. 96 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 70
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households - 91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2)
Describe the need for broadband wiring and connections for households, including low- and moderate-income households and neighborhoods.

Consolidated Plan regulations require the City to address internet connectivity needs in the community, especially the challenges faced by lower-income households accessing the internet. With the evolution of technological products and services such as e-commerce, online banking, and on-demand entertainment, broadband internet access and the underlying infrastructure have become a necessity.

BroadbandNow is a web-based organization dedicated to providing consumers with information regarding internet service providers in their area. BroadbandNow reports that 90.0% of Californians and

98.7% of Orange County residents have access to internet services. According to BroadbandNow, 90.5% of San Clemente properties have access to broadband internet. Cox Communications provides broadband service to 94.2% of these properties via cable. AT&T is available to approximately 98% of these properties with a combination of DSL, fiber optics, and 5G. Several additional providers offer satellite or 5-G-based broadband service.

Describe the need for increased competition by having more than one broadband Internet service provider serve the jurisdiction.

In August 2020, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) published a report entitled “Profiles of Monopoly: Big Cable and Telecom.” The ILSR is a national nonprofit research and educational organization with a mission to provide innovative strategies and information to support strong, community-rooted local economies. The subject report was published to provide information about broadband competition and to explore if large service providers minimized head-to-head competition with each other and how this impacts prices. The report found that nationally, two cable companies had “some 52 million subscribers… whereas the next five largest telecom companies only had about 30 million subscribers.” In some markets, consumers were only provided with two internet service providers: one option for broadband and a slower and less reliable DSL option.

In an article titled “Broadband Competition Helps to Drive Lower Prices and Faster Download Speeds for U.S. Residential Consumers” (Dan Mahoney and Greg Rafert, November 2016), the researchers opined that decision-makers should consider that competition in the broadband marketplace can lower prices, increase product quality, or both. Mahoney and Rafert found that when the number of broadband competitors increases, the cost of service could decrease from 34% to 37%. As outlined above, there is competition for broadband service in San Clemente; however, for lower-income households, the cost of broadband may still be prohibitive.

Most broadband service providers in Orange County participated in the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP); however, as of February 2024, funds have been exhausted. The ACP provides eligible households with a $30 discount on monthly broadband internet service. Sans the reauthorization of the program, 97 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 71
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 most broadband service providers continue to provide reduced-cost service to qualified lower-income households. Cox provides internet service for qualified households for $9.95 a month. AT&T’s Access program provides basic broadband internet service for low-income families for $30 per month. 98 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 72
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3)
Describe the jurisdiction’s increased natural hazard risks associated with climate change.

The City of San Clemente's Local Hazards Mitigation Plan (LHMP) seeks to prevent the loss of life and property damage resulting from natural or human-caused hazards. The City’s LHMP lists, assesses, and ranks potential hazards based on their probability of occurrence and the magnitude of potential impacts. The LHMP identified four hazards as “high” risk: coastal erosion, landslide, severe weather, and wildfire. The LHMP states that climate change has the potential to exacerbate several existing hazards in the City; accordingly, the plan includes a “Climate Change Consideration” narrative for referenced hazards.

Coastal Erosion: Coastal erosion is the process by which wave action, coastal storms, and coastal flooding remove sand or wear down/carry away coastal rocks and soil. It is argued that rising sea levels are the result of temperature increases in the world’s oceans, resulting in increasing storm frequency and, consequently, the erosion of coastal areas.

Landslide and Slope Failure: When a hillside or slope becomes unstable, downslope movement of rock and soil occurs under the direct influence of gravity. Either earthquakes or saturated slopes usually induce landslides. Earthquakes are not linked to climate change; however, heavy rains may be affected by climate change and can contribute to saturated soil and landslides.

Severe Weather: * Extreme heat refers to temperatures that are significantly higher than average for a particular location and time of year. For San Clemente, excessive heat is generally considered to occur when the air temperature is 100°F or greater for two or more consecutive days. As global temperatures rise, extreme heat events may increase in occurrence and duration. * Heavy rain refers to events during which the rainfall in a location substantially exceeds normal rainfall conditions. Climate change has been linked to increased precipitation and more frequent and severe storms, which may cause secondary impacts such as flooding. * Santa Ana Winds occur when air from the dry, desert region of the southwestern U.S. flows westward toward low pressure located off the California coast. These strong winds can cause significant property damage and increase wildfire risk because of the dryness of the winds and the speed at which they can spread a fire across the landscape. It is asserted that wind patterns and velocity may be altered by climate change.

Wildfire: A wildland fire is a large destructive fire that spreads quickly over woodland or brush.

Uncontrolled fires threaten lives, property, natural resources, and wildlife habitats. A wildland-urban interface exists where urban/suburban development presses up against open wildland areas. A wildland-urban interface is present in the eastern inland portion of the City near Caspers Wilderness Park and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, which is adjacent to San Clemente. Climate change can cause an increase in temperatures and more frequent and intense drought conditions, which are contributing factors to more frequent and severe wildfires.

Describe the vulnerability to these risks of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income households based on an analysis of data, findings, and methods.

The LHMP assesses the community’s vulnerability to the identified hazards. 99 Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 73
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Coastal Erosion: Increased coastal erosion could cause severe flooding, which could result in displacing residents and destroying homes and businesses. Characteristics of residents living in vulnerable areas along the coastline, including many households that are housing cost-burdened, uninsured, racial/ethnic minorities, and the homeless.

Landslide and Slope Failure: Nearly the entire City of San Clemente is composed of potentially unstable soils that are conducive to landslides and slope failure. Approximately 16,293 residential units are located within the landslide hazard area. Vulnerable residential units multiplied by the average of 2.7 persons per household for San Clemente indicate that approximately 43,991 people reside in a landslide hazard zone. Characteristics of residents living in vulnerable landslide areas include many households that are housing cost-burdened, uninsured, racial/ethnic minorities, and the homeless.

Severe Weather: Severe weather events could impact the entire City; therefore, all residents are considered vulnerable to severe weather hazards, including households that are housing cost-burdened, uninsured, racial/ethnic minorities, and the homeless.

Wildfire: Significant areas of the City, particularly those along its southern and eastern borders, are highly vulnerable to wildfire hazards. Approximately 4,927 residential units are located within the wildfire hazard area. Vulnerable residential units multiplied by the average of 2.7 persons per household for San Clemente indicates that approximately 13,303 people reside in a wildfire hazard zone. Census Tract 0421.13, which is located in a wildfire hazard area, has been identified as one of the City’s Census Tracts with the highest percentages of cost-burdened residents, uninsured residents, minority populations, and populations who speak English “less than well.” 100
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 74
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Strategic Plan
SP-05 Overview
Strategic Plan Overview
The Strategic Plan is the centerpiece of the City of San Clemente’s 2025–2029 Consolidated Plan. The plan identifies the activities the City will consider or undertake during the five-year Consolidated Plan cycle. In addition to identifying resources, goals, and objectives to implement housing and community development activities, the Strategic Plan has several sub-strategies, including addressing homeless issues, overcoming barriers to affordable housing, and program/project monitoring efforts.

The City’s overall objective for the CDBG program mirrors HUD’s objectives for the program: to create a viable community by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunities for persons of low- and moderate-income. To accomplish these objectives, the following Consolidated Plan goals have been identified based on the consultation process:
x Improve or expand the supply of housing affordable to lower-income households x Provide or improve public infrastructure and facilities that benefit low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and residents
x Provide or improve access to public social services for low- and moderate-income persons and persons with special needs
x Provide a continuum of housing and supportive services for households at risk of homelessness and the homeless
x Expand or preserve economic opportunities for lower-income residents or small businesses that serve lower-income residents
x Provide program administration and planning activities needed to carry out actions that address needs identified in the Consolidated Plan, including services to affirm fair housing laws All programs and projects are subject to the availability of CDBG funds and the City’s annual budget adoption process.
101
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 75
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1)
Geographic Area
Table 43 - Geographic Priority Areas
1 Area Name: CDBG Census Tracts
Area Type: Local Target area
Other Target Area Description: Low- and Moderate- Area
HUD Approval Date: 4/1/24
% of Low/Mod: 52.5%
2 Area Name: Citywide
Area Type: Citywide program or activity
Other Target Area Description: Citywide
General Allocation Priorities
Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA)
To determine which activities will receive CDBG funding during the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan cycle, the City utilized a priority ranking system:
x High Priority: The City will fund activities that address high-priority needs during the five-year Consolidated Plan cycle, provided adequate CDBG resources are available. x Low Priority: The City may or may not fund a low priority need activities during the five-year Consolidated Plan cycle.

CDBG funds will be allocated citywide for activities that primarily benefit qualified low- and moderateincome households (i.e., limited-clientele activities). Other activities, such as public improvements, will be limited to CDBG Target areas (see Appendix 3 - Map D), except for ADA-related improvements, which may be carried out on a much broader basis.

The City does not receive Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) funds. 102
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 76
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2)
Priority Needs
Table 44 – Priority Needs Summary
1 Priority Need
Name
Public Improvements
Priority Level High
Population Moderate
Non-housing Community Development
Geographic Areas
Affected
CDBG Eligible Area
Citywide
Associated Goals Infrastructure and Facility Improvements Description Installation of new or rehabilitation of existing public infrastructure and public facility improvements
Basis for Relative
Priority
Needs analysis, City department consultation, and public input 2 Priority Need
Name
Affordable Housing
Priority Level High
Population Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Geographic Areas
Affected
Citywide
Associated Goals Housing Preservation
Description Loans, grants, and other forms of subsidies to preserve, improve or expand the City's supply of housing affordable to lower-income households Basis for Relative
Priority
Needs analysis and public input
3 Priority Need
Name
Public Services
Priority Level High
Population Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Other – Presumed beneficiaries
103
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 77
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Geographic Areas
Affected
Citywide
Associated Goals Public Social Services
Description Social service programs that provide services to low- and moderate-income residents
Basis for Relative
Priority
Needs Assessment, service providers' input, and public input 4 Priority Need
Name
Homeless Support Services and Housing
Priority Level High
Population Chronic Homelessness
Individuals
Families with Children
Geographic Areas
Affected
Citywide
Associated Goals Homeless Continuum of Care
Description A continuum of housing and support services for persons at risk of homelessness and the homeless
Basis for Relative
Priority
Needs Assessment, service providers' input, and public input 5 Priority Need
Name
Economic Opportunities
Priority Level Low
Population Moderate
Geographic Areas
Affected
CDBG Eligible Area
Associated Goals Economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents Description Grants and other forms of assistance to improve or expand for local businesses
Basis for Relative
Priority
Needs Assessment and public input
6 Priority Need
Name
Administration and Planning
Priority Level High
Population Other
104
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 78
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Geographic Areas
Affected
Citywide
Associated Goals Program Administration
Description Program oversight and coordination, including fair housing services Basis for Relative
Priority
HUD required
Narrative (Optional)
The Fair Housing Act of 1968 requires HUD and its program participants to administer housing and urban development programs in a manner that does not discriminate directly or indirectly based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, familial status, disability, or other personal or familiar attribute.

The Fair Housing Act not only prohibited discrimination in housing-related activities and transactions but also requires entities to affirmatively further fair housing. The 2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing (OC-AFH) is the primary policy document utilized by Orange County HUD grantees for this purpose. HUD encourages jurisdictions to consult with one another and initiate metropolitan-wide planning to address impediments to fair housing choice.

During the past Consolidated Plan cycles, the City participated in the development of a regional or multicity Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). For the 2025-2029 cycle, San Clemente has joined with other Orange County cities and the County of Orange to develop a regional Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). The county-wide AFH evaluates existing demographic data, past fair housing enforcement activity for each partner community, mortgage lender data, existing housing and land use public policies, and other variables. Based on an extensive analysis of data and the input of residents, a list of impediments to fair housing choice for the participating jurisdictions has been developed. A corresponding set of action steps to address these barriers and affirmatively further fair housing has also been prepared. The 2025-2029 OC-AFH is incorporated into this Consolidated Plan as Attachment A. 105
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 79
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b)
Influence of Market Conditions
Table 45 – Influence of Market Conditions
Affordable
Housing Type
Market Characteristics that will influence
the use of funds available for housing type
Tenant Based
Rental Assistance
(TBRA)
This type of activity is typically not CDBG-eligible
TBRA for NonHomeless Special
Needs
This type of activity is typically not CDBG-eligible
New Unit
Production
CDBG cannot be used for this type of activity; however, funds can be used for certain pre-development costs or off-site public improvements. The Needs Assessment and the Housing Market Analysis indicate there is a shortage of housing units affordable to lower-income households; however, due to the size of the City’s annual CDBG allocation, it is unlikely funds will be used for this purpose. A substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan may be necessary if future funding is allocated for this type of activity.

Rehabilitation The Housing Market analysis data indicates that many lower-income homeowners dedicate a significant amount of their income to housing (housing cost burden). Housing rehabilitation assistance allows homeowners to address deferred property improvements on their primary residence without increasing the amount of household income dedicated to housing. If resources are available, rental housing rehabilitation assistance may be provided.

Acquisition,
including
preservation
The Housing Market Analysis data indicates that additional housing is needed that is affordable for lower-income renters and owners. The City’s annual allocation of CDBG funds presents a challenge in reducing project costs significantly.
106
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 80
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2)Introduction Fluctuations in CDBG funding make it difficult to estimate the amount that will be available over the five-year Consolidated Plan cycle. Due to recent housing development activity, the City does have In-lieu Affordable Housing Fund resources. Additionally, housing voucher/certificate resources (via OCHA) will be available to carry out activities that support the goals of the Consolidated Plan. In recent years, the State has allocated Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds to local jurisdictions to support an array of housing-related activities.The City anticipates receiving an annual allocation of $300,000 in CDBG funds from HUD during the five-year Consolidated Plan cycle. Additionally, the City will receive program income generated by the repayment of prior CDBG-funded housing rehabilitation loans. The City also anticipates that the County of Orange will continue to administer the federal rental assistance program in San Clemente, assisting approximately 150 households per year.

Anticipated Resources
Table 46 - Anticipated Resources
Program Source
of
Funds
Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount
Available
Remainder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income: $
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
CDBG public
-federal
Acquisition Admin and Planning Economic Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services 300,000 0 12,427 312,427 1,200,000 Annual HUD CDBG allocation, program income, and prior year funds 107
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 81
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state, and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfiedThe City leveraged federal funds with local redevelopment funds in past years. In 2012, the State Legislature and the governor passed legislation to dissolve all redevelopment agencies in the State; consequently, local resources supporting Consolidated Plan strategies are limited. The City has identified other resources that may be available to carry out activities that address the goals of the Consolidated Plan:
x OCHA reports that as of January 2024, 172 San Clement households receive rental assistance. It was anticipated that 150 households will be assisted annually during the five-year Consolidated Plan programming cycle. x For FY 2025-2026, the City will utilize Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) resources to fund homeless outreach services. PLHA is state funding allocated to local governments to help address unmet housing needs. x In-lieu Affordable Housing Fund resources generated via the City's Inclusionary Housing Program (IHP) are available to assist nonprofit agencies in purchasing land or existing housing units to provide long-term affordable housing. The City adopted the IHP in 1980 to increase the supply of affordable housing. The program requires developers of six or more units to set aside 4% of total units developed for households earning 50% or less of the area median income. The affordable requirement can be provided on-site, off-site, or through an in-lieu fee. Past housing development activity has generated funds of approximately $2,000,000. No specific project(s) is presently slated to benefit from this resource; however, these funds should be considered one-time funds as most large-scale housing development in the City is complete as the City approaches build-out. In-fill redevelopment is anticipated to allow new housingdevelopment, such as the Memorial Care Senior Housing Project on Camino De Los Mares.

CDBG does not require matching funds.

If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the planAs indicated in the Consolidated Plan, San Clemente is nearly "built out" with limited vacant land; nonetheless, the City's Housing Element identifies several vacant and underutilized sites that may be suitable for housing development. Most properties identified in the Housing Element residential sites inventory are in the City's Affordable Housing Overlay. The Housing Overlay Zone intends to encourage affordable rental and for-sale housing in commercial and mixed-use zones. Other in-fill sites outside of the overlay have also been identified for potential housing development, which may include affordable units. 108
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 82
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 DiscussionFunding resources are limited to implementing the City's 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan. The City anticipates receiving $300,000 in 2025 CDBG funding from HUD. An additional $12,427 in uncommitted prior-year CDBG funding, plus program income generated from CDBG-funded housing rehabilitation loan repayments (i.e., Revolving Loan Funds), will be available to address priority needs.

Table 47 - Institutional Delivery Structure
Responsible Entity Responsible Entity
Type
Role Geographic Area
Served
Orange County Housing
Authority PHA
Planning
Public Housing
Rental
Region
211 Orange County Continuum of care
Homelessness
Planning Region
San Clemente Government
Economic
Development
Homelessness
Ownership
Planning
Rental
Neighborhood
Improvements
Public facilities
Public services
Jurisdiction
Family Assistance
Ministries
Non-profit
organization Homelessness Jurisdiction
Laura’s House Non-profit
organization Public service Jurisdiction
Age Well Senior
Services
Non-profit
organization Public service Jurisdiction
Fair Housing
Foundation
Non-profit
organization
Other – Fair Housing
Planning Jurisdiction
Camino Health Services
and Dental Clinic
Non-profit
organization Public service Regional
South County Outreach Non-profit
organization Public service Regional
Vocational Visions Non-profit
organization Public service Regional
Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System San Clemente has a large group of service providers that can deliver a wide variety of quality services for City residents. The City has established good working relationships with these agencies, which facilitates the delivery of services. A partial list of these providers is found above (Table 47). The City also 110
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 84
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 continues to work well with OCHA by supporting its efforts to assist its lower-income renters with housing assistance vouchers and certificates.

Gaps in the institutional delivery system stem from a lack of communication or coordination among service providers, which results in service overlaps.

Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services
Table 48 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary
Homelessness Prevention
Services
Available in the
Community
Targeted to
Homeless
Targeted to People
with HIV
Homelessness Prevention Services
Counseling/Advocacy
Legal Assistance
Mortgage Assistance
Rental Assistance X X
Utility Assistance X
Street Outreach Services
Law Enforcement X
Mobile Clinics
Other Street Outreach Services X
Supportive Services
Alcohol & Drug Abuse
Child Care X
Education X
Employment and Employment
Training X
Healthcare X X

HIV/AIDS
Life Skills X
Mental Health Counseling X
Transportation
Other
Other
Describe how the service delivery system, including, but not limited to, the services listed above, meets the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) Service providers are available to assist San Clemente residents who are at risk of becoming homeless and those who are homeless. Based on the notion that it is less expensive to keep a household in their current housing situation rather than to rehouse them, the primary focus of the City’s homeless strategy is to support the provision of safety net services. Safety net services include case management, 111
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 85
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 supplemental food, limited financial assistance for rent or utilities to prevent eviction or shut off, and reduced-cost medical services. Safety net services enable households at risk of homelessness to redirect limited income toward maintaining their housing.

For the homeless, the City has established relationships with housing and service providers that accept referrals from the City. These agencies can address the immediate, interim, and long-term housing needs of the homeless and provide critical support services.

Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs populations and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above
The City has access to a network of nonprofit agencies that provide various services for residents, including individuals with special needs. The strength of the City’s homeless delivery system is that it has several entry points prepared to meet the unique needs of most homeless persons, including families with children, veterans, and youths.

The main weakness in the City’s service delivery system stems from limited financial resources and service/facility gaps in the continuum of care. The City’s Homeless Outreach Team supports this observation—there is a significant lack of beds for substance-addicted and mentally ill homeless people in Orange County and throughout Southern California.

Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs The Orange County Continuum of Care has designed and implemented a Coordinated Entry System (CES) for people experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness. The objective of the CES is to help people who are homeless more effectively and efficiently secure housing and, consequently, achieve a measurable reduction in regional homelessness. As part of this effort, the OC-CoC has adopted a policy of shifting investment away from transitional housing and investing in permanent supportive housing and rapid re-housing. To the extent resources are available, the City supports the efforts of the OC-CoC to use limited resources as effectively as possible. 112
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 86
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 SP-45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a)(4)Goals Summary Information Table 49 – Goals Summary
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
1 Infrastructure and
Facility Improvements
2025 2029 Non-Housing
Community Development
CDBG Census TractsCitywide
Public Improvements
CDBG:
$592,427
Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit:5,400 Persons Assisted 2 Housing
Preservation
2025 2029 Affordable Housing Citywide Affordable Housing CDBG:
$375,000
Rental units rehabilitated:1 Household Housing UnitHomeowner Housing Rehabilitated:15 Household Housing Unit 3 Public Social
Services
2025 2029 Non-Homeless
Special NeedsLow & Moderateincome Households
Citywide Public Services CDBG:
$141,000
Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit:12,500 Persons Assisted 4 Homeless
Continuum of Care
2025 2029 Homeless Citywide Homeless Support
Services and Housing
CDBG:
$84,000
Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit:200 Persons AssistedHomelessness Prevention:50 Persons Assisted 113
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 87
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
5 Economic
Opportunities
2025 2029 Non-Housing
Community Development
CDBG Census Tracts
Economic Development
CDBG:
$20,000
Businesses assisted:10 Businesses Assisted
6 Program
Administration
2025 2029 Administration Citywide Administration and
Planning
CDBG:
$300,000
Other:275 Other
Goal Descriptions
1 Goal Name Infrastructure and Facility Improvements
Goal Description
Improve and expand public infrastructure and facilities that benefit low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and residents 2 Goal Name Housing Preservation
Goal Description
Improve or expand the supply of housing that is affordable to lower-income households 3 Goal Name Public Social Services
Goal Description
Provide or improve access to public social services for low- and moderate-income persons and persons with special needs 4 Goal Name Homeless Continuum of Care
Goal Description
Support a continuum of housing and supportive services for the homeless and households at risk of homelessness 5 Goal Name Economic Opportunities
Goal Description
Grants and other forms of assistance to improve or expand local businesses 114
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 88
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 6 Goal Name Program AdministrationGoal Description
Provide for administration and planning activities to address needs identified in the Consolidated Plan, including services to address impediments to fair housing
Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2)The City of San Clemente is not a HOME Participating Jurisdiction. 115
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 89
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c) Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units (if Required by a Section 504 Voluntary Compliance Agreement)
The City of San Clemente does not own or manage any public housing units.

Activities to Increase Resident Involvements
Not applicable
Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 902? Not applicable
Plan to remove the ‘troubled’ designation
Not applicable
116
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 90
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.215(h)
Barriers to Affordable Housing
The City has little control over market variables that impact the cost of housing, such as the cost of land and construction supplies, materials, and labor. The City’s Housing Element does identify several “constraints” that may act as barriers to the creation of affordable housing opportunities in the City. x Land Use Controls: The City’s General Plan is the policy document that establishes the location and amount of land that will be allocated to residential development and establishes the intensity of development (in terms of unit densities and the total number of units). In general, higher densities allow developers to take advantage of economies of scale, reduce the per-unit cost of land and improvements, and reduce development costs. Reasonable density standards ensure the opportunity for higher-density residential uses to be developed within a community; therefore, San Clemente’s development standards do not unduly restrict development. x Zoning: Zoning is the primary tool for implementing the Land Use Element. It is designed to protect and promote public health, safety, and welfare. Zoning regulates the use and development of residential parcels, which can impact the cost of housing development. Since zoning is essential for promoting design standards and enhancing residents' quality of life, it is not considered a hindrance to developing quality housing. x Building Code: Building and safety codes are adopted to preserve public health and safety and ensure the construction of safe and decent housing. Codes and standards have the potential to increase the cost of housing construction; however, these regulations provide minimum standards that must be complied with in order to ensure the construction of safe and accessible housing.
x Planning and Development Fees: The State allows local jurisdictions to assess planning and development fees to recoup costs for essential services and infrastructure that are needed for the development of new housing. To enact an impact fee, State law requires that the City demonstrate the “nexus” between the development and the impact being mitigated by the fee.

Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing Listed below are some of the primary actions the City’s Housing Element has identified that can help eliminate or mitigate barriers to the development of affordable housing opportunities. x The City has also established minimum required densities in the mixed-use and affordable housing overlay zones that help ensure that land zoned for multi-family use, which is limited, is developed as efficiently as possible.
x State law requires that local governments grant a density bonus, and additional incentives or concessions to facilitate affordable housing development. The City has adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance and periodically amends this ordinance to comply with updates to State requirements. x The City provides reduced parking requirements for senior housing projects and affordable housing consistent with State Density Bonus law.
x Housing projects developed within the Affordable Housing Overlay must have 51% of the units affordable to very low-income households. These projects are entitled to utilize the State Density Bonus parking standards.
x The State has passed numerous changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law to facilitate the development of ADUs; the City has subsequently amended its ADU Ordinance to comply with State law. ADUs may be an alternative source of affordable housing for lower-income households and seniors since these units typically rent for less than apartments of comparable size. x The City does not typically offer fee waivers; however, the City Council may approve a waiver, offer deferred or reduced fees, or supplement fees. The City has limited financial resources to subsidize housing development; however, the City will accept an in-lieu fee for projects that do not or cannot provide on-site affordable units (including within the Coastal Zone). In turn, In-lieu Fee Funds can be used to contribute to affordable housing projects to create affordable housing opportunities for lower-income residents.
118
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 92
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d)
Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs
The City supports several regional service providers that assist San Clemente residents who are at risk of becoming homeless and who are homeless. These agencies have established outreach programs that engage the homeless and assess their housing and service needs. Local service providers are tied into the regional Coordinated Entry System established by the OC-CoC, which determines the vulnerability of homeless individuals and prioritizes access to housing and services for those most at risk. This need assessment system is designed to “facilitate exits from homelessness to stable housing in the most rapid manner given available resources.”
The City will continue to self-fund its homeless outreach team, which aims to develop relationships with chronically homeless individuals and provide them with the first steps toward self-sufficiency. The Team will continue to coordinate closely with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to ensure that homeless people and those threatened with homelessness are referred to shelters and social service agencies.

Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons The City will continue to support programs that shelter and serve the homeless. As summarized in Table 35, the City has 100 emergency and 18 transitional (interim) shelter beds; however, many shelter beds are earmarked for homeless families with children and victims of domestic violence.

According to current HUD directives, the OC-CoC has established a coordinated entry system whereby a homeless individual or family seeking shelter and services is directed to a streamlined system that facilitates access to appropriate housing and services. The system screens applicants for eligibility for services, such as homelessness prevention, emergency shelter, rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing, and other interventions. The needs and strengths of each household are assessed to determine which interventions will be most effective and appropriate while also prioritizing people for assistance based on the severity of their needs. Homeless service providers presently supported by the City will be critical players in housing and servicing the City’s homeless population via the coordinated entry system.

The OC-CoC reports there are 35 permanent supportive housing beds for the chronically homeless in San Clemente. However, OC-CoC indicates that the beds are located in scattered sites; therefore, some of these beds may be in neighboring communities.
119
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 93
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being discharged from a publicly funded institution or system of care or who are receiving assistance from public and private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education or youth needs
As indicated previously, the City’s homeless strategy is predicated on the notion that homelessness prevention is an essential element of any effort to end homelessness. To this end, the City uses CDBG (and other public) resources to support agencies that provide a variety of safety net services to lowerincome households as a means to prevent homelessness. Examples of safety net services include food banks, rent/utility assistance, and reduced-cost medical services. The City will also participate in regional homeless planning efforts, including the OC CoC’s Discharge Plan, which will aim to prevent individuals who are leaving institutions, hospitals, etc., from becoming homeless. 120
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 94
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 SP-65 Lead-based paint Hazards – 91.215(i)
Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards As required by HUD, the City’s Housing Rehabilitation program staff will ensure that all housing units built before 1978 and that receive CDBG-funded rehabilitation assistance are tested for lead-based paint. If lead is found, additional funds may be allocated to a project to create a home free of lead paint hazards.

How are the actions listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards? During the consultation with the State Department of Public Health, State staff made it clear that the information provided regarding the number of children with high blood lead values was not solely attributed to lead-based paint. Without specific details, the City can only address potential lead poisoning and hazards within the programs it funds. The City will require lead testing for all properties constructed before 1978 that are part of the City’s rehabilitation program.

How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures? As indicated above, the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program policies and procedures require that all homes constructed before 1978 that participate in the program be tested for lead. If lead is found, it must be removed or encapsulated according to HUD regulations. 121
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 95
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j)
Jurisdiction Goals, Programs, and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty-Level Families According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 5.7% of the City’s population lives in poverty, including 4.5% of San Clemente residents aged 65 and older are living in poverty, as do 3.3% of residents aged 18 years and younger. [1]
The City has identified several activities and services that can be implemented to combat poverty:
x Implement housing programs (including housing rehabilitation assistance) for lower-income households with children and seniors
x Support rental assistance programs provided by OCHA for very low-income renters, especially senior households and households with children
x Support homeless prevention services for the near-homeless and, as resources permit, assist those already homeless in need of housing and supportive services x Support public services that provide a social safety net for lower-income individuals x Implementation of the City’s Economic Development Strategy to create an environment that is conducive to building and sustaining business and employment opportunities, especially for lower-income persons
[1] 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table #S1701.

How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this affordable housing plan
The City’s anti-poverty strategy calls for assisting lower-income households, especially senior households and households with children. The support for OCHA’s rental assistance programs for very low-income renters is consistent with the City’s affordable housing plan. Additionally, safety net programs (e.g., food banks and low-cost medical services) assist households at risk of becoming homeless by helping them redirect limited income toward maintaining housing. Funds will also be allocated to support housing and commercial rehabilitation activities, which will help ensure households live in safe and decent housing and expand economic opportunities, respectively. As resources permit, incentives for the development of affordable housing will be provided to create additional housing opportunities for lower-income households.
122
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 96
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230
Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements
The goal of the City’s monitoring efforts will be to ensure compliance with CDBG program requirements, thus protecting the public’s investment in the community.

CDBG-funded activities carried out by sub-recipients will require the submission of quarterly accomplishment reports to program staff. Public service providers will be required to provide information regarding the number of clients served and the overall progress of their programs. City staff will also undertake on-site monitoring to review sub-recipient performance, quality of services, and grant administration abilities. When necessary, corrective actions will be recommended by the City to ensure compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations. Monitoring will be undertaken every other year for agencies that receive regular funding from the City and consistently perform well. Firsttime funded agencies or agencies demonstrating administrative/programmatic issues will be monitored annually until grant management competence is proven.

Quarterly progress reports for public improvement projects will also be required. Reports will include a description of project progress, milestone completion dates, and expenditures. All report information will be entered into IDIS, and the year-end accomplishment information will be submitted to HUD as part of the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER).

With respect to minority and women-owned businesses, the City will continue to solicit the interest of a wide variety of companies and firms to undertake HUD-funded activities. 123
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 97
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan
AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2)IntroductionFluctuations in CDBG funding make it difficult to estimate the amount that will be available over the five-year Consolidated Plan cycle. Due to recent housing development activity, the City does have In-lieu Affordable Housing Fund resources. Additionally, housing voucher/certificate resources (via OCHA) will be available to carry out activities that support the goals of the Consolidated Plan. In recent years, the State has allocated Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds to local jurisdictions to support an array of housing-related activities.The City anticipates receiving an annual allocation of $300,000 in CDBG funds from HUD during the five-year Consolidated Plan cycle. Additionally, the City will receive program income generated by the repayment of prior CDBG-funded housing rehabilitation loans. The City also anticipates that the County of Orange will continue to administer the federal rental assistance program in San Clemente, assisting approximately 150 households per year.

Anticipated Resources
Table 50 - Expected Resources – Priority Table
Program Source
of
Funds
Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount
Available
Remainder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income: $
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
CDBG public
-federal
Acquisition Admin and Planning Housing Public Improvements Public Services 300,000 0 12,427 312,427 1,200,000 Annual HUD CDBG allocation, program income, and prior year funds 124
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 98
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state, and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfiedThe City leveraged federal funds with local redevelopment funds in past years. In 2012, the State Legislature and the governor passed legislation to dissolve all redevelopment agencies in the State; consequently, local resources supporting Consolidated Plan strategies are limited. The City has identified other resources that may be available to carry out activities that address the goals of the Consolidated Plan:
x OCHA reports that as of January 2024, 172 San Clement households receive rental assistance. It was anticipated that 150 households will be assisted annually during the five-year Consolidated Plan programming cycle. x For FY 2025-2026, the City will utilize Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) resources to fund homeless outreach services. PLHA is state funding allocated to local governments to help address unmet housing needs. x In-lieu Affordable Housing Fund resources generated via the City's Inclusionary Housing Program (IHP) are available to assist nonprofit agencies in purchasing land or existing housing units to provide long-term affordable housing. The City adopted the IHP in 1980 to increase the supply of affordable housing. The program requires developers of six or more units to set aside 4% of total units developed for households earning 50% or less of the area median income. The affordable requirement can be provided on-site, off-site, or through an in-lieu fee. Past housing development activity has generated funds of approximately $2,000,000. No specific project(s) is presently slated to benefit from this resource; however, these funds should be considered one-time funds as most large-scale housing development in the City is complete as the City approaches build-out. In-fill redevelopment is anticipated to allow new housingdevelopment, such as the Memorial Care Senior Housing Project on Camino De Los Mares.

CDBG does not require matching funds.
125
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 99
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan As indicated in the Consolidated Plan, San Clemente is nearly "built out" with limited vacant land; nonetheless, the City's Housing Element identifies several vacant and underutilized sites that may be suitable for housing development. Most properties identified in the Housing Element residential sites inventory are in the City's Affordable Housing Overlay. The Housing Overlay Zone intends to encourage affordable rental and for-sale housing in commercial and mixed-use zones. Other in-fill sites outside of the overlay have also been identified for potential housing development, which may include affordable units.

Discussion
Funding resources are limited to implementing the City's 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan. The City anticipates receiving $300,000 in 2025 CDBG funding from HUD. An additional $12,427 in uncommitted prior-year CDBG funding, plus program income generated from CDBG-funded housing rehabilitation loan repayments (i.e., Revolving Loan Funds), will be available to address priority needs.

OCHA aggressively pursues new rental assistance resources, and the City will support OCHA's efforts to secure these resources. Additionally, the City will continue supporting programs that serve City residents with PLHA funds. Finally, the City has identified vacant and underutilized land that may be suitable for housing development. In-lieu fees for affordable housing development are available to support affordable housing activities; however, no projects are slated for development utilizing these resources in FY 2025-2026.
126
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 100
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Annual Goals and Objectives
AP-20 Annual Goals and ObjectivesGoals Summary Information Table 51 – Goals Summary
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed
Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
1 Infrastructure and
Facility Improvements
2025 2026 Non-Housing
Community Development
CDBG Census TractsCitywide
Public Improvements
CDBG:
$132,427
Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 1,345 Persons Assisted 2 Housing
Preservation
2025 2026 Affordable
Housing
Citywide Affordable
Housing
CDBG:
$75,000
Homeowner Housing
Rehabilitated: 3 Household
Housing Unit
3 Public Social
Services
2025 2026 Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Citywide Public Services CDBG:
$31,000
Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 2,705 Persons Assisted
4 Homeless
Continuum of Care
2025 2026 Homeless Citywide Homeless
Support Services and Housing
CDBG:
$14,000
Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 45 Persons AssistedHomelessness Prevention: 5Persons Assisted 5 Program
Administration
2025 2026 Administration Citywide Administration
and Planning
CDBG:
$60,000
Other: 50 Other
127
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 101
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Goal Descriptions
1 Goal Name Infrastructure and Facility Improvements
Goal Description Improve and expand public infrastructure and facilities that benefit low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and residents 2 Goal Name Housing Preservation
Goal Description Improve or expand the supply of housing that is affordable to lower-income households 3 Goal Name Public Social Services
Goal Description Provide or improve access to public social services for low- and moderate-income persons and persons with special needs 4 Goal Name Homeless Continuum of Care
Goal Description A continuum of housing and supportive services for the homeless and households at risk of homelessness 5 Goal Name Program Administration
Goal Description Provide for administration and planning activities to address needs identified in the Consolidated Plan, including services to address impediments to fair housing 128
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 102
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Projects
AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d)
Introduction
The following activities have been allocated CDBG funds for FY 2025-2026. Due to the delay in approving the federal 2025 budget, CDBG funding for activities will be increased or decreased by a percentage based on the final FY 2025-2026 CDBG grant once a federal budget is approved.

Projects
Table 52 – Project Information
# Project Name
1 Single-Family Housing Rehabilitation
2 Age Well Senior Services
3 Camino Health Center
4 Families Forward
5 Silver Connections (City of San Clemente)
6 Parentis Foundation
7 Fair Housing Foundation
8 CDBG Program Administration
9 Av de la Estrella Sidewalk
Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs
The City's Consolidated Plan identifies persons with special needs, seniors, and extremely low-income households as underserved. The City will allocate a portion of its CDBG funds for activities that address the housing and service needs of lower-income households and households with special needs.

Consistent with the City's Homeless Strategy, resources will be allocated to provide safety net services to help at-risk households maintain their current housing. The City will also use CDBG program income (i.e., funds generated by the repayment of housing rehabilitation loans) to help homeowners improve their residences and not incur additional housing cost burden. Additionally, the City will encourage and support OCHA's efforts to obtain additional rental assistance funding for San Clemente households. 129
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 103
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 AP-38 Project SummaryProject Summary Information
1 Project Name Single-Family Housing Rehabilitation Program Target Area CitywideGoals Supported Owner-occupied Housing RehabilitationNeeds Addressed Housing RehabilitationFunding CDBG: $75,000 plus program income received during the yearDescription CDBG-funded housing rehabilitation loans or grants for eligible homeownersTarget Date 6/30/2026Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 3 owner-occupied housing units
Location Description CitywidePlanned Activities CDBG funds ($75,000 in 2025 funds plus program income (Revolving Loan) received during the year) for homeowner housing rehabilitation loans or grants to address housing/building code deficiencies and deferred property improvements
2 Project Name Age Well Senior Services
Target Area CitywideGoals Supported Public Social ServicesNeeds Addressed Public ServicesFunding CDBG: $6,440Description Services for seniors 130
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 104
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Target Date 6/30/2026Estimate the number and type of families 75 seniorsLocation Description CitywidePlanned Activities Meals on Wheels for homebound seniors 3 Project Name Camino Health Center
Target Area CitywideGoals Supported Public Social ServicesNeeds Addressed Public ServicesFunding CDBG: $12,000Description Low-cost medical and dental services for low- and moderate-income personsTarget Date 6/30/2026Estimate the number and type of 2,500 low- and moderate-income personsLocation Description 1031 Avenida Pico, Ste. 104, San Clemente CAPlanned Activities Primary medical, behavioral, and dental health services at a reduced cost for lower-income individuals and indigents
4 Project Name Family Assistance Ministries
Target Area CitywideGoals Supported Homeless Continuum of CareNeeds Addressed Homeless Support Services and HousingFunding CDBG: $14,000Description Housing assistance, support services, and case management for households that are at risk of homelessness and those that are homeless
131
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 105
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Target Date 6/30/2026Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed
activities
50 low- and moderate-income persons
Location Description CitywidePlanned Activities Case management and supportive services, including Homeward Bound assistance for households at risk of homelessness or that are homeless (45 individuals), plus rent and utility assistance for households at risk of homelessness (5 individuals) 5 Project Name Silver Connections (City of San Clemente) Target Area CitywideGoals Supported Public Social ServicesNeeds Addressed Public ServicesFunding CDBG: $7,060Description Senior recreation programTarget Date 6/30/2026Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities An estimated 100 seniors
Location Description CitywidePlanned Activities Socialization and physical activities for adults aged 62 and older 6 Project Name Parentis Health Foundation
Target Area Citywide
132
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 106
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Goals Supported Public Social ServicesNeeds Addressed Public ServicesFunding CDBG: $5,500Description Children's literacy program that links students ages 5 to 11 with a trained older adult tutorTarget Date 6/30/2026Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 30 youths
Location Description Boys & Girls Club of the South Coast Area, 1304 Calle Valle, San Clemente, CAPlanned Activities Intensive one-on-one reading support for students who do not read at grade level - tutoring is provided by trained older adult volunteers for an entire school year 8 Project Name Fair Housing Foundation
Target Area CitywideGoals Supported Program AdministrationNeeds Addressed Administration and PlanningFunding CDBG: $5,000Description Fair housing outreach, education, and enforcement services to reduce and eliminate impediments to fair access to housing
Target Date 6/30/2026Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 50 households
Location Description Citywide
133
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 107
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Planned Activities Fair housing outreach, education, and enforcement services, including landlord, tenant, and property management fair housing training; community outreach and education; complaint investigation and enforcement services 9 Project Name CDBG Program Administration
Target Area CitywideGoals Supported Program AdministrationNeeds Addressed Administration and PlanningFunding CDBG: $55,000Description CDBG program oversight and coordinationTarget Date 6/30/2026Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Not applicable
Location Description 910 Calle Negocio Ste. 100, San Clemente CA – City HallPlanned Activities Program oversight and coordination, including management of public service grants, housing rehabilitation programs, and preparation of required applications and reports 10 Project Name Avenida de la Estrella Sidewalk
Target Area CDBG census tractsGoals Supported Public Infrastructure ImprovementsNeeds Addressed Public ImprovementsFunding CDBG: $132,427Description Neighborhood sidewalk improvementsTarget Date 6/30/2027 134
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 108
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Estimated 1,345 individuals, 62.1% of which are low- and moderate-income (835 individuals) Location Description 1200 Block of Avenida de la Estrella, San Clemente, CA (Census Tract 421.07 Block Group 1 Planned Activities Construction of approximately 580 linear feet of concrete sidewalk, including curbs, gutters, ramps, and a pedestrian crossing sign
135
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 109
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f)
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed Most activities slated for CDBG funding during FY 2024-2025 will be available citywide to income-eligible individuals and households. These activities include public services and housing rehabilitation. Activities such as sidewalk improvements will be limited to specific areas of the City where a significant percentage of residents meet HUD's income limits. A map of the City's CDBG-eligible areas is provided in Appendix 3 – Map D.

Geographic Distribution
Table 53 - Geographic Distribution
Target Area Percentage of Funds
CDBG census tracts 42
Citywide 58
Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically FY 2025-2026 CDBG funding is principally allocated in the City's CDBG-eligible Census Tracts; however, the City's primary intent is to serve lower-income residents who need housing or services regardless of where they live in the City. Area-wide activities (e.g., public improvements) are typically limited to the City's CDBG-eligible areas
Discussion
The City's primary intent is to use CDBG funds to assist eligible households that need services regardless of where they live in the City. A portion of funds focuses on specific areas of the City with a significant percentage of low—and moderate-income residents.
136
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 110
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Affordable Housing
AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g)
Introduction
The City will utilize limited CDBG funds and program income (Revolving Loan) to provide eligible homeowners with housing rehabilitation loans and grants.

Table 54 - One-Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One-Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 0
Non-Homeless 3
Special-Needs 0
Total 3
Table 55 - One-Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type One-Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 0
The Production of New Units 0
Rehab of Existing Units 3
Acquisition of Existing Units 0
Total 3
Discussion
The City will utilize CDBG and program income (Revolving Loan funds) to assist in rehabilitating owneroccupied housing units. While it is not the program's primary focus, some special-needs households (senior and disabled) may be assisted by the program during the year. The City will also continue to support OCHA's program activities in the community. It is estimated that 150 households will receive rental assistance vouchers or certificates during FY 2025-2026. 137
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 111
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h)
Introduction
San Clemente does not own or manage public housing.

Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing Not applicable.

Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership
Not applicable.

If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance
Not applicable.

Discussion
San Clemente does not own or manage public housing.
138
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 112
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) Introduction
As the Strategic Plan outlines, the City's homeless strategy emphasizes preventing homelessness since it is less expensive and disruptive to keep a household house in place. To this end, the City has supported local agencies with CDBG resources that provide various services for lower-income households, including food, rent/utility assistance, and reduced-cost healthcare services. These safety net programs can help a household maintain its current housing situation and avoid homelessness.

Describe the jurisdiction's one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness, including:

Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs
No CDBG resources will be allocated for homeless outreach services in FY 2025-2026. However, the City will utilize PLHA funds to fund homeless outreach staff.

The City of San Clemente will also continue to support agencies working directly with sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations. For example, Family Assistance Ministries conducts extensive outreach and vulnerability assessments for families with children throughout San Clemente and neighboring communities. Other agencies conduct similar outreach and assessment services for specific populations, such as domestic violence victims and transitional-age youth.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons The Consolidated Plan indicates that Family Assistance Ministries manages 53 emergency and six transitional shelter beds in San Clemente. These shelter beds are earmarked for homeless families with children. Additionally, Laura's House offers 42 emergency shelter and 12 transitional shelter beds for victims of domestic violence. Friendship Shelter provides five emergency shelter vouchers as well.

No FY 2025-2026 CDBG funds are allocated for emergency shelter or transitional housing.

Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again
As outlined above, the City will focus its CDBG resources on providing social safety net services to help at-risk households avoid becoming homeless. As previously reported, it is estimated that there are 36 139
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 113
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 sheltered San Clemente homeless individuals; however, 46 individuals are reported as unsheltered homeless.

Upon request, the City may support agencies that provide homeless housing and supportive services by providing a Certification of Consistency with the Consolidated Plan. (Note that in addition to being consistent with the Consolidated Plan, programs must also comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations). Additionally, the City will continue to support the OC-CoC's efforts to seek resources to address regional homeless issues and support OCHA's efforts to obtain additional housing assistance vouchers for homeless Veterans (VASH). OCHA reports that in January 2024, four veteran households will benefit from VASH housing assistance in San Clemente. Additionally, ten households receive rental assistance via the Continuum of Care Voucher program. The latter provides rental subsidies and supportive services to individuals with disabilities who have experienced homelessness.

Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs
The City's strategy is to help households at risk of becoming homeless stay in their homes. CDBG funding is allocated to provide social safety net services to help at-risk households avoid becoming homeless.

The City will also continue to support the regional homeless planning efforts, including the OC-CoC's Discharge Plan, which will help prevent individuals from leaving institutions, hospitals, etc., and becoming homeless.

Discussion
The City's homeless strategy is to prevent homelessness and support local service providers' efforts to seek additional resources. The City's CDBG funds are allocated for safety net services to help households at risk of homelessness redirect limited income toward housing. 140
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 114
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j)
Introduction:

The City's Housing Element lists barriers to affordable housing and discusses actions to overcome them in the Consolidated Plan.

Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing, such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment
Listed below are some of the primary actions the City’s Housing Element has identified that can help eliminate or mitigate barriers to the development of affordable housing opportunities. x The City has also established minimum required densities in the mixed-use and affordable housing overlay zones that help ensure that land zoned for multi-family use, which is limited, is developed as efficiently as possible.
x State law requires that local governments grant a density bonus, and additional incentives or concessions to facilitate affordable housing development. The City has adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance and periodically amends this ordinance to comply with updates to State requirements. x The City provides reduced parking requirements for senior housing projects and affordable housing consistent with State Density Bonus law.
x Housing projects developed within the Affordable Housing Overlay must have 51% of the units affordable to very low-income households. These projects are entitled to utilize the State Density Bonus parking standards.
x The State has passed numerous changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law to facilitate the development of ADUs; the City has subsequently amended its ADU Ordinance to comply with State law. ADUs may be an alternative source of affordable housing for lower-income households and seniors since these units typically rent for less than apartments of comparable size. x The City does not typically offer fee waivers; however, the City Council may approve a waiver, offer deferred or reduced fees, or supplement fees. The City has limited financial resources to subsidize housing development; however, the City will accept an in-lieu fee for projects that do not or cannot provide on-site affordable units (including within the Coastal Zone). In turn, In-lieu Fee Funds can be used to contribute to affordable housing projects to create affordable housing opportunities for lower-income residents.

Discussion:

The City's Housing Element identifies several barriers to developing affordable housing opportunities and several actions the City can take to reduce these impacts. No projects are currently planned or under construction that are using these incentives.
141
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 115
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)
Introduction:

Outlined below are the actions the City will implement to address the sub-strategies of the Strategic Plan.

Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The City will allocate a portion of CDBG funds for activities that address the service needs of lowerincome and special-needs households. Additionally, the City will encourage and support OCHA's efforts to obtain additional rental assistance funding for these households. CDBG resources will be available to help with housing rehabilitation. This program assists homeowners in improving their residences and addressing specific household needs.

Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing San Clemente has identified actions it will implement during FY 2025-2026 to foster and maintain affordable housing. The Strategic Plan identifies programs such as Housing Rehabilitation assistance as the means to maintain and improve housing currently available to low- and moderate-income homeowners. By providing deferred payment loans or grants, homeowners can rehabilitate their properties to meet basic housing quality standards and incur zero or minimal additional housing costs.

FY 2025-2026 CDBG funding and program income received during the year will be available to assist with housing rehabilitation.

Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards
The City will ensure compliance with federal lead-based paint regulations. All housing units constructed before 1978 that are rehabbed with CDBG funds must be tested for lead paint hazards. If lead is found, additional assistance may be provided to eliminate lead hazards in compliance with current regulations.

Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families Approximately 5.7% of the City's population live below the poverty level, including 3.3% of children under 18 and 4.5% of seniors (aged 65 and older). During FY 2025-2026, the City will fund the following activities to help reduce the number of poverty-level households:
x Support public services that provide a social safety net for lower-income households, especially for the near-homeless
x Support OCHA's administration of the federal rental assistance program for very low-income renters
x Subject to the availability of funds, provide housing rehabilitation assistance for lower-income and special-needs homeowners
142
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 116
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Actions planned to develop institutional structure
The City has made an effort to establish an institutional structure to help identify and access resources to improve the community. The City will continue to work with nonprofit and public entities to deliver public services. As a supporter of the Orange County Continuum of Care, the City will provide critical information to the County of Orange to prepare the County's Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance grant application to HUD. The City will also continue to assist OCHA in implementing its Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plan to provide rental assistance vouchers and certificates.

Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies
The City of San Clemente does not operate public housing, but OCHA provides rental assistance in the community. Federal legislation requires that OCHA prepare five-year and one-year plans highlighting its mission, goals, and objectives related to public and assisted housing programs. The City will review OCHA's plans and provide OCHA with the opportunity to review and consult with the City regarding its Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan. This cross-consultation aims to provide consistent and coordinated housing services for City residents.

San Clemente has also developed positive relationships with private and nonprofit housing developers.

Additionally, ongoing relationships with local nonprofit social service providers help promote the efficient and effective use of limited private and public resources to address the community's service needs.

Discussion:

The Fair Housing Act prohibited discrimination in housing-related activities and transactions and requires the City to affirmatively further fair housing. The OC-AFH (Appendix A) includes the City’s actions to affirmatively further fair housing during FY 2025-2026. 143
Consolidated Plan SAN CLEMENTE 117
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021) DRAFT 4/4/25 Program Specific Requirements
AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4)
Introduction:

Each HUD program covered by the Consolidated Plan regulations must address specific program-specific requirements
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)
Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out.

1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 0 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan
0 3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0

4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan. 0 5. The amount of income from float-funded activities 0 Total Program Income 0
Other CDBG Requirements

1. The amount of urgent need activities 0

2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate-income. Overall Benefit - A consecutive period of one, two, or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate-income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. 100%
144
Five-Year and One-Year Summary of Accomplishments
Grantee Name: City of San Clemente
Source of
Funds Year Performance Indicators Expected Number Actual Number Percent Completed 2020 Housing Units 2 1 50.0%2021 Housing Units 3 2 66.67%2022 Housing Units 3 6 200.00%2023 Housing Units 6 0 0.00%2024 Housing Units 20 9 45.00%
2020 Housing Units 0 0 NA2021 Housing Units 0 0 NA2022 Housing Units 0 0 NA2023 Housing Units 0 0 NA2024 Housing Units 2 0 0.00%
2020 Housing Units 150 141 94.00%2021 Housing Units 140 130 92.86%2022 Housing Units 130 130 100.00%2023 Housing Units 130 139 106.92%2024 Housing Units 150
(Annual Avg)
135
(4 Yr Avg)

90.00%
(4 Yr Avg)
Source of
Funds Year Performance Indicators Expected Number Actual Number Percent Completed 2020 Individuals 2,845 2,365 83.13%2021 Individuals 2,720 2,616 96.18%2022 Individuals 2,825 2,808 99.40%2023 Individuals 2,784 2,754 98.92%2024 Individuals 12,500 10,543 84.34%
2020 Projects 0 0 0.00%2021 Projects 0 0 0.00%2022 Projects A 0 1,810 NA2023 Projects 1 0 0.00%2024 Projects 7,000 1,810 25.86%
Housing Choice Vouchers (Administered by OCHA): Improve or expand the supply of housing affordable to lower-income householdsProvide or improve access to public social services for low- and moderate-income persons and persons with special needs 5-Yr Con Plan Goal
Objective: Public Social Services
Objective: Infrastructure and Facility Improvements
CDBG
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
CDBG
Decent Housing
CDBG
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
Housing Rehabilitation Loans and Grants: Improve or expand the supply of housing affordable to lower-income homeowners HUD
Housing
Vouchers
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
Housing Rehabilitation Loans and Grants: Improve or expand the supply of housing affordable to lower-income renter households CDBG 5-Yr Con Plan Goal
Improve and expand public infrastructure and facilities that benefit low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and residents Objective: Housing Preservation
Suitable Living Environment
Appendix 1 1 of 2
145
Five-Year and One-Year Summary of Accomplishments
Source of
Funds Year Performance Indicators Expected Number Actual Number Percent Completed 2020 Businesses B 0 40 NA2021 Businesses 5 1 20.00%2022 Businesses 5 1 20.00%2023 Businesses 5 0 0.00%2024 Businesses 10 2 20.00%
Source of
Funds Year Performance Indicators Expected Number Actual Number Percent Completed 2020 Individuals 290 453 156.21%2021 Individuals 564 880 156.03%2022 Individuals 2,157 2,187 101.39%2023 Individuals 0 0 0.00%2024 Individuals 2,450 3,520 143.67%
Source of
Funds Year Performance Indicators Expected Number Actual Number Percent Completed 2020 Year of Admin 1 1 100.00%2021 Year of Admin 1 1 100.00%2022 Year of Admin 1 1 100.00%2023 Year of Admin 1 1 100.00%2024 Year of Admin 5 4 80.00%
2020 Households 60 30 50.00%2021 Households 50 71 142.00%2022 Households 30 57 190.00%2023 Households 50 58 116.00%2024 Households 300 216 72.00%
CDBG
A. Consolidated Plan goals are established by the number of "Projects" to be undertaken/completed; however, year-end reporting requires accompishments reported by the number of persons benefitting from the project. No new project or accomplishments reported - Cabrillo Sidewalk Improvements was initially funded in FY 19-20.

CDBG
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
CDBG
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
Provide for administration and planning activities to carry out actions that address needs in the Consolidated Plan, including fair housing services to address local impediments to fair housingProvide for administration and planning activities to carry out actions that address needs in the Consolidated Plan, including fair housing services to address local impediments to fair housing Objective: Economic Opportunities
Economic Opportunity
5-Yr Con Plan Goal
Other
Objective: Administration and Planning
On December 17, 2020, added small business assistance grant for businesses impacted by the Coronavirus (CDBG-CV funding) Provide a continuum of supportive and housing services for the homeless and households at risk of homelessness 5-Yr Con Plan Goal
Continuum of Care
Objective: Homeless Continuum of Care

CDBG-CV
B. CDBG-CV funds were used to assist businesses in FY 20-21.

Appendix 1 2 of 2
146
TO BE PUBLISHED: 04/03/25

PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF 30-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

AND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD BY THE

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF THE 2025-2029 CONSOLIDATED PLAN, CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN, AND THE 2025-2029 ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of San Clemente will hold a public comment period and a public hearing for the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan, which includes the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan, amendments to the City’s Citizen Participation Plan, and the 2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing. This action is taken in compliance with federal regulations [24 CFR 91].

As a recipient of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, the City is required to prepare a Consolidated Plan every five years and to update the related Action Plan annually. Both actions are necessary for the City to receive CDBG funds via the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Citizen Participation Plan outlines the steps the City will take to engage public participation in the allocation of CDBG funds. The City is also required to comply with the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibits discrimination based on protected personal and familial attributes. The City is also required to affirmatively further fair housing. The Assessment of Fair Housing is the primary policy document utilized by the City for this purpose. The City is a participant in preparation for the countywide 2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment to Fair Housing (OC-AFH).
30-Day Public Comment Period
The required 30-day public comment period for the documents listed above will commence on April 4, 2025, and will end on May 5, 2025. The draft documents will be available for public review on the City’s website (https://www.san-clemente.org/departments-services/housing-and-social-services), and upon request by contacting staff. Written comments regarding the draft documents must be submitted to the attention of Andy Flores at San Clemente City Hall – 910 Calle Negocio or by email at floresa@sanclemente.org. All written comments must be received by the City no later than 12 PM May 5, 2025. 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan
HUD requires the City of San Clemente to prepare and adopt a Consolidated Plan for its CDBG Program every five years. The plan identifies community needs and activities the City can implement with CDBG funds to provide decent housing and suitable living environments, address community service and facility needs, and expand economic opportunities for primarily low—and moderate-income households. 2025-2026 Action Plan
The Action Plan is a component of the Consolidated Plan that is updated annually. The 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan outlines the City’s proposed use of CDBG funds for the upcoming fiscal year. To date, HUD has not announced the FY 2025-2026 CDBG allocations; however, for planning purposes, the City anticipates receiving $300,000 in CDBG funds for FY 2025-2026; $12,427 in prior year CDBG funds are also available for programming in FY 2025-2026. The proposed use of CDBG funds for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 includes the following:

Proposed Activity Proposed CDBG Allocation
Public services for lower-income persons and special needs populations $45,000 Housing and Public facility/infrastructure improvements $207,427 Program administration (including Fair Housing counseling) $60,000 ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆϮ ϭŽĨϯ 147
Citizen Participation Plan
The Citizen Participation Plan outlines the actions the City takes to encourage the participation of San Clemente residents, businesses, and other community stakeholders in the allocation of CDBG funds.

Federal regulations largely dictate the content of the plan; however, the City is proposing modifications to the current plan that require public review and City Council approval. The draft revised Citizen Participation Plan is incorporated into the draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan as Attachment B.

Orange County FY 2025-2029 Regional Assessment of Fair Housing (OC-AFH) As a recipient of CDBG funds, the City of San Clemente is required to comply with the Fair Housing Act of 1968. In addition to prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, disability, and other protected personal and familial attributes, the City is required to affirmatively further fair housing. The OC-AFH is the primary policy document utilized by the City for this purpose. HUD encourages jurisdictions to consult with one another and prepare a region-wide plan to address impediments to fair housing choice. To this end, the City is a participant in the preparation of the 2025-2029 OC-AFH. The entire draft OC-AFH is available for public review on the City’s website at https://www.sanclemente.org/departments-services/housing-and-social-services. The executive summary and action steps to be taken by the City are included in the draft Consolidated Plan as Attachment A.

Public Hearing
The City is required to hold a public hearing to obtain additional public comments regarding the documents listed above. Notice is hereby given that the City of San Clemente City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, for this purpose. The hearing will be held in the City of San Clemente Council Chamber, located at 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California, Second Floor, at 6:00 PM or soon thereafter.

If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or written correspondence delivered to the City of San Clemente at or prior to the public hearing. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing.

To allow staff adequate time to confirm software compatibility, individuals wishing to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentations at the meeting must submit the electronic files to the City Clerk by no later than 12:00 PM on the day of the meeting. Only compatible electronic formats will be permitted to be used on City audio/visual computer equipment. Staff makes no guarantee that such material will be compatible but will use its best efforts to accommodate the request.

Laura Campagnolo
Legislative Administrator

ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆϮ ϮŽĨϯ 148

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
30-DAY COMMENT PERIOD
TBD

PUBLIC HEARING
TBD
ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆϮ ϯŽĨϯ 149
City of San Clemente - Map A Hispanic Concentration
6RXUFHV
(VUL +(5( *DUPLQ 86*6 ,QWHUPDS ,1&5(0(17 3 15&DQ (VUL-DSDQ0(7,(VUL &KLQD +RQJ.RQJ
(VUL.RUHD(VUL
7KDLODQG
1*&&
F
2SHQ6WUHHW0DSFRQWULEXWRUVDQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
+LVSDQLF2ULJLQ

!
PL NP

Appendix 3 1 of 4
CT: 0421.1425.9% Hispanic
CT: 0421.0923.9% Hispanic
CT: 0422.0526.0% Hispanic
CT: 0422.0617.0% Hispanic
CT: 0421.0732.3% Hispanic
CT: 0421.0815.5% Hispanic
150
City of San Clemente - Map B Asian Concentration
6RXUFHV
(VUL +(5( *DUPLQ 86*6 ,QWHUPDS ,1&5(0(17 3 15&DQ (VUL-DSDQ0(7,(VUL &KLQD +RQJ.RQJ
(VUL.RUHD(VUL
7KDLODQG
1*&&
F
2SHQ6WUHHW0DSFRQWULEXWRUVDQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
$VLDQ$ORQH

PL NP

Appendix 3 2 of 4
CT: 0421.0515.8% Asian
CT: 0421.0612.0% Asian CT: 0421.12 14.0% Asian
CT: 0320.638.1% Asian
151
City of San Clemente - Map C Housing Cost Burden Concentration 6RXUFHV
(VUL +(5( *DUPLQ 86*6 ,QWHUPDS ,1&5(0(17 3 15&DQ (VUL-DSDQ0(7,(VUL &KLQD +RQJ.RQJ
(VUL.RUHD(VUL
7KDLODQG
1*&&
F
2SHQ6WUHHW0DSFRQWULEXWRUVDQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\
+RXVLQJ&RVW%XUGHQ
3D\LQJ!
3D\LQJ!

3D\LQJ!!3D\LQJ!
PL NP

Appendix 3 3 of 4
CT: 0421.0553.3% Cost Burden
CT:0421.0752.8% Cost Burden
CT:0422.0653.4% Cost Burden
152
Appendix 3 4 of 4
Map D
153
2UDQJH &RXQW\ 5HJLRQDO
$VVHVVPHQWRI)DLU +RXVLQJ

EQUAL HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ ϭŽĨϳ

THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXCERPT OF THE ORANGE COUNTY
REGIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING 2025-2029
LIMITED TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & SAN CLEMENTE'S AFH ACTION PLAN.

THE COMPLETE AFH CAN BE ACCESSED AT
www.san-clemente.org/departments-services/housing-and-social-services 154
I. Executive Summary
The Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) provides communities an opportunity to assess their progress toward the goals of eliminating housing discrimination and promoting access to housing opportunity for both current and future residents. Jurisdictions that receive funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds, complete an AFH at least once every five years, consistent with the Consolidated Plan cycle, as part of their obligations under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and the CranstonGonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.

As a fair housing planning document, the AFH facilitates HUD grantee compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements to affirmatively further fair housing. Affirmatively furthering fair housing entails taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing applies to all activities and programs within a jurisdiction related to housing and urban development.

This AFH is a collaborative effort among the following jurisdictions:
x Orange County and the Urban County Program participating cities of Brea, Cypress, Dana Point, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Los Alamitos, Placentia, San Juan Capistrano, Seal Beach, Stanton, Villa Park, and Yorba Linda. x The HUD Entitlement Cities of Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, City of Orange, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, Santa Ana, Tustin, Westminster.

To prepare the AFH, jurisdictions first must identify fair housing issues. A fair housing issue refers to a condition within a specific geographic area that restricts fair housing choice or limits access to opportunity. Fair housing issues may include ongoing local or regional segregation/concentration or lack of integration, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, and evidence of discrimination or violations of civil rights law or regulations related to housing.

To identify fair housing issues, HUD recommends that jurisdictions gather and analyze data. For this AFH, the jurisdictions analyzed data on the following topics:
x Demographics
x Segregation or Concentration/Integration
x Racially and/or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty x Disparities in Access to Opportunity
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ ϮŽĨϳ 155
x Housing Needs
x Discrimination Complaints
The data utilized in the analysis are from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS), HUD’s AFFH Data and Mapping Tool, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer 2.0, housing discrimination complaint data provided by HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), and information gathered through the community participation process (described below).

The ACS data utilized in the assessment are from the 2018-2022 five-year estimates, which were the most current data across all participating jurisdictions at the time the analysis was conducted.

After analyzing the data and identifying fair housing issues, jurisdictions then must identify contributing factors. A contributing factor is any condition that creates, contributes to, perpetuates, or increases the severity of one or more fair housing issues. For each fair housing issue and its contributing factors, jurisdictions must then develop fair housing goals. A fair housing goal is a specific, meaningful action that can reasonably be expected to create meaningful positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing by increasing fair housing choice or reducing disparities in access to opportunity.

For the contributing factors and fair housing goals in this AFH, the jurisdictions built upon the extensive work they have already done preparing their most recent Housing Elements, which cover an eight-year planning period. As part of the state-mandated Housing Element, California jurisdictions must conduct a fair housing assessment that includes an analysis of fair housing issues, identification of factors that create and/or contribute to those issues, and development of goals and meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing.

Progress toward reaching the goals identified in the Housing Element must then be periodically reported to the state.

A summary of the fair housing issues, significant contributing factors, and fair housing goals for each jurisdiction can be found in Section IV of this AFH. ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ ϯŽĨϳ 156
R. San Clemente
Issue: Concentration, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs The majority of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, except for one Census Tract encompassing neighborhoods north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park, which is classified as low-medium concentration. There is a cluster of publicly supported housing units in this lowmedium concentration area.

Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities may disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.

Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in San Clemente.

Contributing Factors:

1. Unaffordable rents and sales prices in a range of sizes, the location and type of affordable housing, and an overall shortage of subsidized housing units

2. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures

3. Cost of repairs or rehabilitation

4. Dominance of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multi-family housing

5. Lack of fair housing education and outreach
Actions: Timeframe:

1. Annually promote equal access to fair housing information for all residents. Expand outreach methods beyond traditional media (newspaper or City website) to include other social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Focus fair housing outreach efforts in the area along the western side of Interstate 5 where racial/ethnic minorities and LMI households are concentrated.

Annually, with the goal to
increase distribution of
information by 20%
between 2021-2029

2. Continue to work under contract with the Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) and/or other qualified fair housing service providers to provide fair housing services for all segments of the community.

Serve at least 50
households each year.

Annually evaluate and
adjust the scope of services
to ensure the City address
any emerging trends in fair
housing issues.

3. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, provide outreach and education to landlords and tenants regarding the state’s new source of income protection (SB 329 and SB 229) that recognizes public assistance such as Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) and Veterans Assistance Supportive Housing (VASH) as legitimate source of income for rent
Conduct outreach and
education annually;
increase vouchers from
Orange County Housing
Authority by 10% between
2021-2029.
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ ϰŽĨϳ 157
payments. Specifically, provide fair housing responsibility to new ADU applicants.

4. Help non-profits acquire and convert market-rate housing to affordable housing
Ongoing

5. Work to preserve the City’s affordable housing inventory Ongoing

6. Offer a variety of housing opportunities to enhance mobility among residents of all races and ethnicities by facilitating affordable housing throughout the community through the following actions:

Goal of creating 446
affordable units for lower
income households
between 2021 and 2029
a. Promote by-right approvals to facilitate at least one new multi-family housing project with at least 20% of units for lower income households
2021-2029
b. Promote Lot Consolidation program and incentives to
at least three developers.
2021-2029
c. Implement the City’s Affordable Housing Overlay to
facilitate at least one new multi-family housing project 2021-2029
d. Promote the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program to
facilitate at least one multi-family housing project with units affordable for lower income households
2021-2029

7. Provide rehabilitation financing assistance through the Neighborhood Revitalization Program and advertise this
program to the western and southern areas of the City with older housing units and overpaying households.

Assist at least two
homeowners per year

8. Increase public outreach to at least once a year and encourage residents to learn about available housing programs.

Annually

9. Through the City’s fair housing service provider (FHF) increase materials distribution by 25% through the following actions:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to
apartment managers and homeowner associations on
why denial of reasonable modifications/
accommodations is unlawful through fair housing
service contract at least once a year.

Annually
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach at least once a year to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies.

Methods of outreach may include workshops,
informational booths, presentations to community
Annually
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ ϱŽĨϳ 158
groups, and distribution of multilingual fair housing
literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referral services to address tenant landlord issues and
investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination
and take appropriate actions to reconcile cases or refer to appropriate authorities.

Ongoing
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online
media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory
housing advertisements.

Annually
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider.

Ongoing
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ ϲŽĨϳ 159

PUBLIC NOTICE
2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing Notice of Public Meetings
Program Description: Federal and State laws prohibit discrimination in the sale, rental, leasing, negotiation, advertising, and financing of housing. The 2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) is a five-year planning document that examines housing and demographic data to identify fair housing issues, determine contributing factors, and establish goals to ensure fair housing choice, address disproportionate housing needs, and increase access to opportunity. The geography addressed by this AFH includes 27 incorporated cities throughout Orange County as well as the unincorporated areas.

Public Meetings: Public meetings will be held to provide an opportunity for residents to provide feedback on fair housing issues. Orange County residents are invited to attend any of the following public meetings:
x March 5, 2025 from 10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. at Santa Ana City Council Chamber, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
x March 5, 2025 from 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. at Santa Ana City Council Chamber, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
x March 6, 2025 from 10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. at La Habra City Hall, Festival Room, 110 E. La Habra Blvd., La Habra, CA 90631
x March 6, 2025 from 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.at Costa Mesa City Hall, Community Room, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Two virtual meetings also will be held. To access the meetings, visit the URL listed below. x March 7, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. https://bit.ly/OCAFH
x March 13, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. https://bit.ly/OrangeCoAFH ADA Compliance: All in-person public meetings will be held at locations accessible to persons with disabilities. Anyone who requires public documents in an accessible format, the jurisdictions will make reasonable efforts to accommodate requests. If special assistance is required to participate in a public meeting, the meeting host will attempt to make accommodations in every reasonable manner. Please contact David Flores, Housing Programs Coordinator for the City of Santa Ana at 714-647-6561 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to describe specific needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible.

Language Access: Translation services for participants in the public meetings will be available in Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean, Mandarin, and Arabic.
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ ϳ ŽĨ ϳ 160

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CONSOLIDATED PLAN
1 APPROVED MAY 19, 2020DRAFT MARCH 11, 2025CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Attachment B

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
The City of San Clemente Citizen Participation Plan has been prepared pursuant to federal regulations and the City’s desire to encourage and support public participation in the development of the Consolidated Plan and related documents. The Consolidated Plan is a five-year strategic plan that identifies priority needs in the community and the activities that can be funded with certain federal resources that will address these needs.

The actions outlined in the Citizen Participation Plan only relate to the planning and expenditure of funds provided to the City by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD).

Specifically, the City receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from HUD-CPD. It is the City’s goal to ensure the input of residents and other stakeholders will be a significant component of the decision-making process culminating in the adoption of the Consolidated Plan, annual updates, related documents, and year-end reporting.

APPLICABILITY & ADOPTION OF THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN As required by HUD, the Citizen Participation Plan has been developed to ensure San Clemente residents participate in the development of a strategy to meet priority housing and community needs of the City and to provide input on the utilization of federal HUDCPD entitlement funds. Citizen involvement will be encouraged in the development of the Consolidated Plan and subsequent annual updates to the Consolidated Plan. The Citizen Participation Plan will also affect the process by which community stakeholds stakeholders are included in the assessment of program performance and any substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan.

The City will encourage public participation through various means. Community wide notices in the form of newspaper advertisements announcing public workshops, meetings, and/or public hearings will be one of the primary means utilized to inform residents/stakeholders if of significant actions related to Consolidated Plan. Other methods of communication that may be utilized include special mailings and video/electronic communication (e.g., cable TV notices and the City’s web page site). 161

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CONSOLIDATED PLAN
2 APPROVED MAY 19, 2020DRAFT MARCH 11, 2025CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Attachment B

ADOPTION OF THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
The authorization of the San Clemente City Council to submit the Consolidated Plan to HUD will constitute the official adoption of the Citizen Participation Plan. Similarly, authorization of the Council to submit subsequent annual updates to the Consolidated Plan and annual performance reports will constitute a formal adoption.

ENCOURAGEMENT OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
To the greatest extent feasible, the City of San Clemente’s Citizen Participation process emphasizes the involvement of Low- and Moderate-income residents (as defined by HUD) and/or entities that represent or serve the community’s lower-income population.

Additionally, as required by federal regulations, efforts will also be taken to encourage the participation of the City’s racial and ethnic minorities, non-English speaking individuals, individuals with disabilities, and recipients of federal housing rental assistance.

The following elements of the City's Citizen Participation Plan have been devised to ensure San Clemente residents are provided ample opportunities to become involved and represented in the Consolidated Plan planning process.
Citizen participation is open to any person wishing to attend any of the meetings, hearings, and/or workshops sponsored by the City regarding HUD-CPD programs. Public hearings will be held before the City Council to obtain public comments at various stages of Consolidated Plan preparation and adoption. Public input will be recorded by the City as required by federal regulations for inclusion in Consolidated Plan-related documents.
From time to time, the City’s Human Affairs Committee will serve as an additional means for residents and stakeholders to provide input in the Consolidated Plan process. Specifically, the Human Affairs Committee will hear and provide input on the housing and social service needs of the City. Committee meetings may also be utilized as a forum to develop strategies and priorities for addressing priority housing and non-housing needs of the community. If appropriate, the recommendations of the Human Affairs Committee will be included in related staff reports to the City Council. As appropriate and/or needed, additional citizen participation will be encouraged via neighborhood and community-wide public meetings or hearings.

The City will work in partnership with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) to ensure participants in their rental assistance program are afforded opportunities to 162

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CONSOLIDATED PLAN
3 APPROVED MAY 19, 2020DRAFT MARCH 11, 2025CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Attachment B
participate in the Consolidated Plan process. Additionally, the City will work with OCHA to build consistency and mutual support for the goals outlined in the Authority’s five-year Agency Plan and the City’s Consolidated Plan. The City’s Community Development staff will attend regular meetings of the Cities Advisory Committee sponsored by OCHA.

CITIZEN COMMENTS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITIZEN

PARTICIPATION PLAN & AMENDMENTS TO THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Pursuant to HUD regulations, San Clemente residents and stakeholders will be given no less than 30 days to submit written comments during the development of the Citizen Participation Plan (and/or substantial amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan) prior to the submission of the Plan to HUD. The Citizen Participation Plan and any amendments will be available for public review at the following locations:
City Hall - Community Development Department
City of San Clemente website – www.san-clemente.org
San Clement City Hall is accessible to persons with physical disabilities; however, if a physical disability would limit an individual’s ability to review the plan, upon request, the City will make a reasonable effort to make the plan (and/or amendments) available in an appropriate format.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN Before the Consolidated Plan (or subsequent annual update) is adopted by the City Council and submitted to HUD, Community Development Department staff will make the draft plan available to residents, public agencies, and other interested parties for review and comment. The City will publish its proposed Consolidated Plan (and annual updates) so that all affected residents will have sufficient opportunity to review and comment on the plan. A summary describing the contents and purpose of the Consolidated Plan will be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation.

At a minimum, information that will be provided in a public notice will include the amount of CDBG grant funds the City expects to receive (including program income) and activities to be undertaken. If applicable, information will also include the steps the City will take to eliminate the need for the displacement of residents and/or businesses. If displacement occurs due to any planned actions, the City will comply with the 163

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CONSOLIDATED PLAN
4 APPROVED MAY 19, 2020DRAFT MARCH 11, 2025CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Attachment B
requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (and implementing regulations in 49 CFR part 24).

The draft Consolidated Plan will be available to residents and other interested parties to facilitate their participation in the development of the plan. The proposed plan will be made available for review at the following locations:
City Hall - Community Development Department
City of San Clemente website – www.san-clemente.org
Additionally, a reasonable number of free copies will be available via the Community Development Department.

During the development of the Consolidated Plan (and subsequent annual updates), there will be at least one public hearing to obtain comments from persons affected by the use of HUD-CPD funds and other interested parties. Additionally, as required by program regulations, there will be a 30-day public comment period prior to the submission of the Consolidated Plan to HUD. The City will consider all comments received from residents, public agencies, and other interested parties as it prepares the final Consolidated Plan (and annual updates). A summary of public comments will be included with the final submission. The summary of public comments will include a synopsis of the City’s response to written public comments and an explanation of public comments not accepted, including the reasons why these comments were not accepted.

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN
The City will amend the Consolidated Plan or a subsequent annual update whenever one or more of the following decisions are made:

1. There is a change in the original relative priority designation of a housing or community need, or there is a change in the original purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries of an activity listed in a final plan submitted to HUD.

2. The City decides to undertake an activity that was not previously included in the Consolidated Plan or a subsequent annual plan.

HUD requires that if the City undertakes a substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan (or a subsequent annual plan), residents and stakeholders must be provided with reasonable notice of the proposed amendment and also provided an opportunity to 164

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CONSOLIDATED PLAN
5 APPROVED MAY 19, 2020DRAFT MARCH 11, 2025CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Attachment B
comment on the proposed amendment. A substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan (or subsequent annual plan) is defined as:

1. A change in the use of CDBG funds from one eligible activity to another, for example, changing CDBG funds allocated for housing rehabilitation to a sidewalk improvement project) and/or

2. The reallocation of 45 55 percent or more of an annual CDBG allocation from one or more eligible activities to one or more otheranother eligible program activitiesactivity.

Changes in funding for an existing project not amounting to more than 45 55 percent of the City’s annual CDBG allocation are not considered a substantial change; no formal amendment to the Action Plan requiring public review and comment will be warranted.

A summary of the amendment will be included in the year-end report to HUD. The reallocation of CDBG funds at the end of the fiscal year from a canceled activity or an activity that does not expend any funds during the year is not considered a substantial amendment.

A substantial amendment will be subject to a public hearing and a 30-day public comment period. The City will publish the proposed substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan (or annual update) so that residents and interested parties will have sufficient opportunity to review and comment on the amendment. A summary describing the purpose of the amendment will be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation. A reasonable number of free copies of the proposed amendment will be available upon request. Additionally, a copy of the proposed amendment will be made available for review at the following locations:
City Hall - Community Development Department
City of San Clemente website – www.san-clemente.org
Prior to notifying HUD of the substantial amendment to an authorized Consolidated Plan (or a subsequent annual update), the City will hold a 30-day public comment period.

Additionally, the City Council will hold a public hearing to obtain public comments regarding the amendment. The City will consider all comments received from residents, public agencies, and other interested parties regarding the amendment prior to HUD submittal. A summary of public comments will be included with the City’s notification of the amendment to HUD. The summary of public comments will include a synopsis of the City’s response to written public comments and an explanation of public comments not accepted including the reasons why these comments were not accepted. 165

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CONSOLIDATED PLAN
6 APPROVED MAY 19, 2020DRAFT MARCH 11, 2025CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Attachment B

PERFORMANCE REPORTS
The City is required to submit an annual performance report describing the use of CDBG funds to HUD no later than 90 days from the end of a program year (i.e., late September).

This performance report is known as the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). Prior to submitting the CAPER to HUD, the City will solicit and consider the comments of residents, public agencies, and other interested parties regarding the report.

As required by HUD, the City will publish a notice that its CAPER is available for public review in one or more newspapers of general circulation. This notice will contain information regarding the required 15-day public comment period and City Council meeting. The CAPER will be considered by the City Council prior to the submission of the CAPER to HUD for the purpose of obtaining additional public input.

In addition to making a reasonable number of free copies of the CAPER available for the public, the draft CAPER will be placed at the following locations:
City Hall - Community Development Department
City of San Clemente website – www.san-clemente.org
The City will consider all comments received from residents and interested parties during the comment period and public meeting. A summary of comments will be provided to HUD as part of the City’s CAPER submission. The summary of public comments will include a synopsis of the City’s response to written public comments and, if applicable, an explanation of why a public comment was not considered.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
The City of San Clemente will hold a public hearing each year to ensure that the public has ample opportunity to provide input regarding the development of proposed activities to be funded with CDBG resources. Year-end program performance will also be considered by the City Council during a public meeting prior to the submission of the CAPER to HUD. Public hearings and meetings will be held at times and locations that are convenient to residents that who might or have benefited from CDBG-funding funded activities.
166

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CONSOLIDATED PLAN
7 APPROVED MAY 19, 2020DRAFT MARCH 11, 2025CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Attachment B
Rules for all public hearings/meetings include the following:

1. A notice of each hearing will be published at least 14 days prior to the meeting date.

The notice will be published in a local newspaper of general circulation. All notices will be of a size and type to draw the attention of casual newspaper readers and will state the time, date, location, and topics to be discussed.

2. Where a significant number of non-English speaking residents can be reasonably expected to participate, translators will be available.

3. Meetings will be held at locations that are accessible to persons with disabilities.

4. As necessary, virtual meetings may be held in place of in-person meetings when deemed necessary for public health or safety. Virtual meetings will afford the public the ability to engage in a live exchange of questions and answers with the City Council and City staff.

MEETINGS
Newspapers, special mailings, the City’s website, and other forms of communication will be utilized to notify residents and interested parties of meetings, workshops, and hearings related to the Consolidated Plan, subsequent annual updates and performance reports. As stated above, meetings will be scheduled at times and locations that are convenient to residents that who might or have benefited from CDBG-funding activities and that are accessible to persons with disabilities.

AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC
As previously stated, the City will publish announcements regarding the availability of its proposed Consolidated Plan (and subsequent annual updates), amendments, and performance reports so that residents and interested parties will have sufficient opportunity to review documents and provide comments. Notices will be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation, and a reasonable number of free copies of the entire proposed plan, amendments, and performance reports will be available.

Plans/reports will also be available for review at the following locations:
City Hall - Community Development Department
City of San Clemente website – www.san-clemente.org
Upon request (and within reason), the plan will be made available to persons with disabilities.
167

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CONSOLIDATED PLAN
8 APPROVED MAY 19, 2020DRAFT MARCH 11, 2025CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Attachment B

ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE (AI)/ASSESSMENT OF

FAIR HOUSING (AFH)
The Fair Housing Act of 1968 requires HUD and the City of San Clemente to administer housing and urban development programs in a manner that does not discriminate directly or indirectly based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, familial status, disability, or other protected familial or personal traits. The Fair Housing Act not only prohibited discrimination in housing-related activities and transactions but also requires entities to affirmatively further fair housing. The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), also known as the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), is the primary policy document utilized by the City for this purpose. The City participated in the preparation of the 2020-2024 Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing and more recently, the 2025-2029 Orange County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing (OC-AFH). HUD requires the City to outline the process it will follow to approve the AI/AFH and for amending the AI/AFH. The same process for adopting and amending the Consolidated Plan will apply to the AI/AFH.

A substantial amendment to the AI/AFH entails a material change in circumstances that affects the information on which the AI /AFH is based to the extent that the analysis, the fair housing contributing factors, or the priorities and goals of the AI/AFH no longer reflect actual circumstances. Examples include:
Presidentially declared disasters in the City that are of such a nature as to significantly impact the steps a program participant may need to take to affirmatively further fair housing
Significant demographic changes
New significant contributing factors in the City
Civil rights findings, determinations, settlements, or court orders HUD's written notification specifying a material change that requires revision.

When a revision is required as a result of a material change, such a revision will be submitted within 12 months of the onset of the material change or at such later date as HUD may provide. Where the material change is the result of a Presidentially declared disaster, such time shall be automatically extended to the date that is two years after the date upon which the disaster declaration is made. HUD may extend such deadline, upon request, for a good cause.
168

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CONSOLIDATED PLAN
9 APPROVED MAY 19, 2020DRAFT MARCH 11, 2025CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Attachment B

ACCESS TO RECORDS
The City will provide access to information and records relating to the Consolidated Plan to residents, public agencies, and other interested parties. Additionally, information regarding the City's past use of CDBG will also be made available.1 Requests for information and records must be made in writing to:

City of San Clemente
Community Development Department
910 Calle Negocio San Clemente, CA 92673
The written request must delineate the specific information that is being requested.

Community Development staff will have 15 working days to respond to requests.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
The City will provide technical assistance to groups representing Low- and Moderateincome persons that request help in developing proposals for CDBG funding. The City will determine the type and level of assistance that staff will provide for each group.

Technical assistance does not include nor assure the awarding of CDBG funds.

COMPLAINTS
Written complaints regarding the preparation of the Consolidated Plan/annual updates, amendments, and/or performance reports must be submitted in writing to:

City of San Clemente
Community Development Department
910 Calle Negocio San Clemente, CA 92673
The City will provide a written response to complaints within 15 working days from the date the complaint is received.
1 Prior to the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the City participated in the Urban County CDBG program. The Orange County Housing and Community Services Department was responsible for preparing Consolidated/Annual Action plans and accomplishment reports on behalf of San Clemente therefore some pre-2006-2007 CDBG records may not be in the custody of the City. When necessary, a reasonable effort will be made to obtain copies of related documents from the County. 169

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CONSOLIDATED PLAN
10 APPROVED MAY 19, 2020DRAFT MARCH 11, 2025CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Attachment B

USE OF THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
The City will comply with the process and policies established in the City Counciladopted Citizen Participation Plan when administering CDBG funds. Amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan will be subject to the substantial amendment requirements outlined in this document.

JURISDICTION’S RESPONSIBILITY
The requirements for the Citizen Participation Plan will not restrict the responsibility or authority of the City in the development and execution of the Consolidated Plan.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR DISASTERS & EMERGENCIES In the event of a local, state, or national disaster, it may be necessary to rapidly deploy existing or new funding resources allocated to the City by HUD. In these emergency situations, the Citizen Participation process may be streamlined to reduce delays in accessing grant funds pursuant to notices, waivers, award letters, or other HUD directives. Rapid deployment of HUD resources may require a substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan(s).

CORONAVIRUS AID, RELIEF, AND ECONOMIC SECURITY ACT OF 2020 Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020 (CARES Act) and regulatory waivers authorized by the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Community Planning and Development, on March 31, 2020, the City of San Clemente will implement the following regulatory relief waivers related to Citizen Participation:

1. Citizen Participation Public Comment Period for Consolidated Plan Amendment:

The 30-day public comment period is waived for substantial amendments to no fewer than five (5) days. This waiver will apply to the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, and other CARES Act-related funding or program modifications.

2. Reasonable Notice and Opportunity to Comment: The Citizen Participation Plan sets forth the requirements for reasonable notice and opportunity for the public to comment. In an effort to contain COVID-19 by limiting public gatherings and to respond quickly to the growing spread and effects of COVID-19, reasonable notice and opportunities to comment are amended as follows:
x Reasonable Notice: Related notice(s) will be posted on the City’s website – www.san-clemente.org, social media, and in the Public Notice displace case located at the entrance of the City of San Clemente City Hall. The notice will be 170

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CONSOLIDATED PLAN
11 APPROVED MAY 19, 2020DRAFT MARCH 11, 2025CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Attachment B
prominent and will provide a summary of the proposed amendment, information regarding the opportunity to provide comments, and information on how to view or obtain a copy of the draft amendment.
x Opportunity to Comment: Members of the public are invited to review the draft amendment and provide written comments. The public notice will provide an email address where written comments can be submitted. City staff will provide a written response to public comments received during the comment period. A summary of written comments received during the comment period and Staff responses will be incorporated into the amendment that is submitted to HUD at the conclusion of the comment period.
x Public Hearing: On or soon after day five (5) of the comment period, the City Council will hold a hearing. The public can listen to the meeting via live stream from the City’s YouTube channel at www.san-clemente.org/live or live on Cox Communications Local Access Channel 854. Members of the public can submit comments to the Council electronically. Material may be emailed to [email protected]. Transmittal by 4:00 p.m. on Council meeting days is recommended. Comments must indicate by item title or number the agenda item to which they apply. Additional instructions will be listed on the City’s website. Public comments will be summarized and incorporated into the final amendment that is submitted to HUD.

City staff will submit the subject amendment(s) to the HUD in a timely manner. This waiver will apply to the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, and other CARES Actrelated funding or program modifications. This waiver will be applicable through June 30, 2021, or as otherwise directed by HUD.
171
OUDQJH&RXQW\5HJLRQDO
$VVHVVPHQWRI)DLU+RXVLQJ

EQUAL HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY
Attachment 3
172
Orange County i 25-29 Regional AFH
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to all individuals and organizations that contributed to the planning process, including, but not limited to, the following:

The individuals and organizations (including Equus Workforce Solutions, Project Hope Alliance, Alianza Translatinx, Human Options, Illumination Foundation, The Eli Home, The Cambodian Family, and Orange County Families Forward) who attended the in-person and virtual community meetings.

The organizations that participated in the stakeholder interviews and focus groups, including Fair Housing Council of Orange County, Fair Housing Foundation, Orange County Families Forward, Orange County United Way, Family Assistance Ministry, The HUB OC, National Core, NeighborWorks Orange County, Thomas House Family Shelter, Domus Development, Dayle McIntosh Center, CalOptima, and Assistance League of Orange County.

Staff from all jurisdictions that participated in the planning effort, with additional thanks to staff from:
• The Cities of Costa Mesa, La Habra, and Santa Ana, for hosting in-person community meetings.
• The County of Orange and the Cities of Anaheim, Aliso Viejo, Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Santa Ana, and Rancho Santa Margarita for advertising the in-person and virtual community meetings through various channels.
• The City of Santa Ana, which served as lead agency responsible for coordinating the development of this report.

Document Version
Last updated: March 27, 2025
173
Orange County ii 25-29 Regional AFH
Cover Photo Credit
The cover photograph for this report was provided courtesy of C&C Development. The photograph features Terraces at Santiago in the City of Santa Ana’s Station District.

Terraces at Santiago is an award-winning 36-unit urban infill transit-oriented multifamily affordable rental housing development featuring a mix of two-, three-, and five-bedroom apartments. In keeping with surrounding neighborhoods, this property was designed with Spanish/Santa Barbara architectural influences. Exterior detailing accents include wrought iron, decorative gables, wall sconces, decorative arches, decorative wood rafter rails, decorative painted wood shutters, and recessed stucco elements with wrought iron lattice.

The building is LEED Gold Certified.
174
Orange County iii 25-29 Regional AFH
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. 1 II. Community Participation Process ...................................................................................... 3 A. Stakeholder Consultation................................................................................................. 3 B. Community Meetings ....................................................................................................... 3 III. Fair Housing Analysis ........................................................................................................... 6 A. Demographic and Housing Summary ............................................................................ 6 B. Segregation/Concentration and Integration ................................................................ 38 C. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)............................... 60 D. Disparities in Access to Opportunity............................................................................. 66

1. Education ..................................................................................................................... 66

2. Employment ................................................................................................................ 80

3. Transportation ............................................................................................................. 92

4. Access to Low Poverty Neighborhoods ................................................................... 99

5. Access to Environmentally Healthy Neighborhoods ............................................ 112

6. Disability and Access ................................................................................................ 120

7. Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity ................................................... 124 E. Disproportionate Housing Needs................................................................................ 129 F. Local and State Policies and Practices Impacting Fair Housing .............................. 143 IV. Fair Housing Issues and Action Plan .............................................................................. 146 A. Orange County Urban County ..................................................................................... 146

1. Unincorporated Orange County .............................................................................. 149

2. Brea............................................................................................................................. 156

3. Cypress....................................................................................................................... 159

4. Dana Point.................................................................................................................. 161

5. La Palma..................................................................................................................... 165

6. Laguna Beach ............................................................................................................ 170

7. Laguna Hills ............................................................................................................... 174

8. Laguna Woods ........................................................................................................... 179 175
Orange County iv 25-29 Regional AFH

9. Los Alamitos .............................................................................................................. 182

10. Placentia..................................................................................................................... 184

11. San Juan Capistrano................................................................................................. 189

12. Seal Beach ................................................................................................................. 191

13. Stanton....................................................................................................................... 193

14. Villa Park .................................................................................................................... 194

15. Yorba Linda................................................................................................................ 196 B. Aliso Viejo ...................................................................................................................... 199 C. Anaheim......................................................................................................................... 201 D. Buena Park ..................................................................................................................... 206 E. Costa Mesa .................................................................................................................... 209 F. Fountain Valley .............................................................................................................. 213 G. Fullerton ......................................................................................................................... 215 H. Garden Grove ................................................................................................................ 225 I. Huntington Beach ......................................................................................................... 228 J. Irvine............................................................................................................................... 229 K. La Habra ......................................................................................................................... 240 L. Laguna Niguel ............................................................................................................... 244 M. Lake Forest..................................................................................................................... 249 N. Mission Viejo.................................................................................................................. 251 O. Newport Beach.............................................................................................................. 253 P. Orange............................................................................................................................ 255 Q. Rancho Santa Margarita............................................................................................... 258 R. San Clemente ................................................................................................................ 261 S. Santa Ana....................................................................................................................... 264 T. Tustin.............................................................................................................................. 268 U. Westminster................................................................................................................... 272 176
Orange County 1 25-29 Regional AFH
I. Executive Summary
The Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) provides communities an opportunity to assess their progress toward the goals of eliminating housing discrimination and promoting access to housing opportunity for both current and future residents. Jurisdictions that receive funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds, complete an AFH at least once every five years, consistent with the Consolidated Plan cycle, as part of their obligations under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and the CranstonGonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.

This AFH is a collaborative effort among the following jurisdictions:
• Orange County and the Urban County Program participating cities of Brea, Cypress, Dana Point, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Los Alamitos, Placentia, San Juan Capistrano, Seal Beach, Stanton, Villa Park, and Yorba Linda. • The HUD Entitlement Cities of Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, City of Orange, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, Santa Ana, Tustin, Westminster.

To identify fair housing issues, HUD recommends that jurisdictions gather and analyze data. For this AFH, the jurisdictions analyzed data on the following topics:
• Demographics
• Segregation or Concentration/Integration
• Racially and/or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty • Disparities in Access to Opportunity
177
Orange County 2 25-29 Regional AFH
• Housing Needs
• Discrimination Complaints
The data utilized in the analysis are from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS), HUD’s AFFH Data and Mapping Tool, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer 2.0, housing discrimination complaint data provided by HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), and information gathered through the community participation process (described below).

The ACS data utilized in the assessment are from the 2018-2022 five-year estimates, which were the most current data across all participating jurisdictions at the time the analysis was conducted.

Progress toward reaching the goals identified in the Housing Element must then be periodically reported to the state.

A summary of the fair housing issues, significant contributing factors, and fair housing goals for each jurisdiction can be found in Section IV of this AFH. 178
Orange County 3 25-29 Regional AFH
II. Community Participation Process
To develop the AFH, information was also gathered from residents, housing professionals, and service providers. Incorporating information from these sources is important for ensuring that the AFH reflects community needs and knowledge that may not be discernible from other data sources. The community participation process for this AFH involved the following efforts:

A. Stakeholder Consultation
Four one-on-one interviews, and two focus groups were conducted during January and February 2025 with organizations that provide fair housing services and/or housing and services to protected class groups throughout the County. The interviews and focus group sessions discussed the fair housing issues frequently encountered by the organizations, the underlying causes for those issues, and ongoing efforts currently to address them.

Participants also discussed additional actions their organizations would recommend.

Invitations to participate in the stakeholder consultation activities were sent to approximately 78 organizations identified by the jurisdictions involved in the planning process. Fourteen organizations, as well as staff from two of the participating jurisdictions, participated in these consultations, including: Fair Housing Council of Orange County, Fair Housing Foundation, Orange County Families Forward, Orange County United Way, Family Assistance Ministry, The HUB OC, National Core, NeighborWorks Orange County, Thomas House Family Shelter, Domus Development, City of Garden Grove, City of Lake Forest, Dayle McIntosh Center, CalOptima, and Assistance League of Orange County. Information gathered through these consultations is incorporated throughout this report.

B. Community Meetings
A total of six community meetings were held in March 2025 to gather public input on the fair housing issues impacting residents of Orange County, and the factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of those issues. These meetings included two virtual meetings and four in-person meetings held at the dates, times, and locations listed below.

In-person community meetings:
• March 5, 2025, from 10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. at Santa Ana City Council Chamber, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
• March 5, 2025, from 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. at Santa Ana City Council Chamber, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
• March 6, 2025, from 10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. at La Habra City Hall, Festival Room, 110 E. La Habra Boulevard, La Habra, CA 90631
179
Orange County 4 25-29 Regional AFH
• March 6, 2025, from 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. at Costa Mesa City Hall, Community Room, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Virtual community meetings:
• March 7, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., via Microsoft Teams
• March 13, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., via Microsoft Teams
Outreach to advertise the community meetings included the following efforts:
• City of Anaheim notified the 250 members of their Homeless Collaborative and community stakeholders.
• City of Aliso Viejo posted a copy of the notice to their City website and shared on social media and city newsletters.
• City of Buena Park posted the public notice on the City website and City Hall bulletin board.
• City of Fountain Valley posted the public notice on the City website • City of Fullerton published the public notice in the Fullerton Observer newspaper, placed the notice on the City of Fullerton website, and placed copies of the notice at various public facilities and libraries as well as over 25 affordable housing sites. • City of Irvine sent copies of the notice to subrecipient partners and other interested parties.
• City of Laguna Niguel posted the public notice on the City website and social media channels.
• City of Mission Viejo posted the public notice on the City website. • City of San Clemente posted the public notice on the City website. • City of Santa Ana published the public notice for the public meetings in six languages (English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, and Arabic) including the following publications: Orange County Register, La Opinion, Nguoi Viet Daily News, Korea Times, World Journal, and Beirut Times.
• City of Rancho Santa Margarita posted the public notice on bulletin boards outside City Hall, OCFA Station 45, and Trabuco Canyon Water District. • County of Orange sent information regarding the virtual community meetings to community centers in the unincorporated areas of the County.

A total of fifteen individuals participated in these meetings to share their knowledge on fair housing issues and contributing factors in Orange County. These included representatives from the following organizations: Equus Workforce Solutions, Project Hope Alliance, Alianza Translatinx, Human Options, Illumination Foundation, The Eli Home, The Cambodian Family, Orange County Families Forward, City of Fountain Valley, and City of Buena Park. Information gathered through these meetings is incorporated throughout this report.
180
Orange County
5 25
-29 Regional AFH
181
Orange County 6 25-29 Regional AFH
III. Fair Housing Analysis
A. Demographic and Housing Summary
Table 1 – Demographics, shows demographic information for the population of Orange County overall, the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions0F 1 , the participating HUD
Entitlement Cities, and the region1F
2 . These data are from the Census Bureau’s 2018-2022
American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. Table 2 – Demographic Trends, shows similar data over time, dating back to 1990. These tables indicate the following:

Population
Orange County has a population of 3,175,227. The largest cities in the County are Anaheim (population 347,111), Santa Ana (population 311,379), and Irvine (population 304,527). The Urban County population is 585,178.

Race/Ethnicity
Orange County’s population is majority-minority; however, the largest population group is White (38.46%). Hispanic residents comprise the second largest population group (33.93%), followed by Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI), who make up 21.77% of the County population. African Americans account for 1.54% of the County population.

Compared to the region, Orange County has a higher proportion of White and AAPI residents, and a smaller proportion of Hispanic and Black residents.

Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• The Urban County, Aliso Viejo, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Rancho Santa Margarita, and San Clemente have a significantly higher2F
3 proportion of White residents.
• Anaheim, La Habra, and Santa Ana have a significantly higher proportion of Hispanic residents.
• Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Irvine, and Westminster have a higher proportion of AAPI residents.

Since 1990, the County population has become more diverse, transitioning from a White majority in 1990 to a majority-minority population today. The number of White residents in 1 The Orange County Urban County comprises the County unincorporated area, twelve (12) cities with populations under 50,000 (participating cities) and two (2) cities, Placentia and Yorba Linda, with populations over 50,000 (metropolitan cities).
2The region is defined by HUD as the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which comprises Los Angeles and Orange counties.
3 For this analysis, “significantly higher” means that the percentage of residents of a particular race/ethnicity in a city is at least 10% higher than the percentage of residents of the same race/ethnicity in the County overall. 182
Orange County 7 25-29 Regional AFH
the County declined each decade, while the number of Hispanic and AAPI residents grew.

The number of Black residents increased between 1990-2010 but declined over the past decade. These same trends are generally shared with the region and across the Urban County and HUD Entitlement Cities, with the following exceptions:
• In the region, the Black population has been declining since 2000. • In Aliso Viejo, the population of all racial/ethnic groups, including White, has increased in each decade.
• In Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach, the AAPI population has declined over the last decade.
• In Fountain Valley and Garden Grove, the Black population has been declining since 2000.
• In Irvine, the White and Black populations have been increasing since 2000, in addition to growing Hispanic and AAPI populations.
• In La Habra, the Black population continued to grow after 2010. • In Laguna Niguel and Lake Forest, the White population increased during the 1990s before declining over the subsequent decades, and the Black population has continued to grow over the last decade.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, the White population increased during the 1990s before declining over the last two decades.
• In San Clemente, the White population grew between 1990-2010, before shrinking slightly over the last decade; and the AAPI population fell over the last decade. • In Santa Ana, the Black population has been falling since 1990, and the Hispanic population has been declining since 2000.
• In Tustin, the Black population has been declining since 1990.

National Origin
Orange County has a foreign-born population of 937,254 (29.52% of the total population3F 4 ).

The primary countries of origin for the foreign-born population are Mexico (9.17%) and Vietnam (4.69%).

In the region, 32.52% of the population is foreign born, which is slightly higher than in Orange County.

Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel, Newport Beach, Orange, and San Clemente have significantly lower percentages of foreign-born residents. 4 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B05006 183
Orange County 8 25-29 Regional AFH
• Garden Grove, Irvine, Santa Ana, and Westminster have significantly higher percentages of foreign-born residents. In these cities, the main countries of origin for the foreign-born population are:
o Garden Grove: Vietnam and Mexico
o Irvine: China (excluding Taiwan), Korea, and India
o Santa Ana: Mexico and Vietnam
o Westminster: Vietnam and Mexico
Since 1990, the County’s foreign-born population has increased in each decade, with the most dramatic increase occurring during the 1990s. In comparison, • The foreign-born population in the region grew between 1990-2010 and has been declining since 2010.
• The foreign-born population has declined in the following jurisdictions:
o The Urban County, Anaheim, La Habra, Orange, and San Clemente, where the foreign-born population has been declining since 2010.
o Costa Mesa and Santa Ana, where the foreign-born population has been declining since 2000. However, in Santa Ana, foreign-born residents still make up approximately half of the total population.
• In Irvine, the foreign-born population has continued to grow rapidly, nearly doubling since 2010.

Limited English Proficiency
Individuals who have Limited English Proficiency (LEP) are those who primarily speak a language other than English and speak English “less than very well.” In Orange County, there are 539,484 LEP individuals4F
5 , which is equal to approximately 16.99% of the
population. The primary languages spoken by the LEP population in the County are Spanish (11.72%) and Vietnamese (3.45%).

In the region, 21.95% of the population is LEP, which is slightly higher than in Orange County.

Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• Aliso Viejo, Newport Beach, and San Clemente, have significantly lower percentages of LEP residents.
• Anaheim, Buena Park, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Westminster have significantly higher percentages of LEP residents. In these cities, the primary languages spoken by the LEP population are:
o Anaheim: Spanish and Vietnamese
5 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1601 184
Orange County 9 25-29 Regional AFH
o Buena Park: Spanish and Korean
o Garden Grove:Vietnamese and Spanish
o Santa Ana: Spanish and Vietnamese
o Westminster:Vietnamese and Spanish
Between 1990-2010, the County’s LEP population increased. Since 2010, the County’s LEP population has declined, though it remains well above the 1990 LEP population. In comparison:
• The LEP population in the region grew during the 1990s but has been declining since 2000.
• The LEP population has grown each decade since 1990, including since 2010, in the Urban County jurisdictions, Aliso Viejo, Fountain Valley, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Westminster. • The LEP population has been declining since 2000 in Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Santa Ana.
• In Garden Grove, Newport Beach, and San Clemente, the LEP population declined between 2000-2010, but has increased since 2010.

Age
Approximately 63.2% of the Orange County population is between the ages of 18 and 64;

15.38% are aged 65 and older, and 21.42% are younger than 18. The age distribution of the population in the region is similar. In comparison to the County overall, the Urban County, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, and Newport Beach all have slightly older populations, with over one-fifth of their population aged 65 and older.

Since 1990, the County’s population has been getting older. Currently, the County’s population has a smaller proportion of the population (when compared to 1990) in both the “Under 18” and “18-64” year-old age categories, and a higher proportion of the population in the “65+” age category. The same general trend is evident in the region and all other jurisdictions, except for Aliso Viejo, where the percentage of the population under age 18 has increased, and the percentage of the population aged 65 and older has decreased, since 1990.

Families with Children
In Orange County, approximately 41.56% of families have children. This is slightly higher than the region, where 40.02% of families have children. Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• Aliso Viejo and Tustin have significantly higher percentages of families with children (52.06% and 52.64%, respectively), and in Irvine, over half (50.45%) of families have children.
185
Orange County 10 25-29 Regional AFH
• Laguna Niguel, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Westminster have the lowest percentages of families with children, although the percentages are not significantly lower than those for the County overall.

The percentage of families with children in the County is lower today than it was in 1990, when 48.04% of families had children. This is also true in the region and the other jurisdictions, with the following exceptions:
• Aliso Viejo, Newport Beach, and Tustin, where the current percentage of families with children is higher than it was in 1990.

Table 1 – Demographics
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 3: Data Sources: LEP Language data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; All other data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5- Year Estimates.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 186
Orange County 11 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 187
Orange County 12 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 188
Orange County 13 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 189
Orange County 14 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 190
Orange County 15 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 191
Orange County 16 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 192
Orange County 17 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 193
Orange County 18 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 2 – Demographic Trends
194
Orange County 19 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 2 – Demographic Trends (continued)
195
Orange County 20 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 2 – Demographic Trends (continued)
196
Orange County 21 25-29 Regional AFH
The following paragraphs describe housing patterns, including tenure, cost burden, and the location of renters and owners.

Tenure
Table 3 - Housing Tenure, shows data on housing tenure for the region, Orange County, the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, and each HUD Entitlement City. These data are from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. This table indicates the following:

In Orange County overall, the homeownership rate is 56.5%. This is higher than the homeownership for the region, which is 48.7%. Among the jurisdictions, • The following have a comparable homeownership rate (within five percentage points of the County’s rate)
o Aliso Viejo
o Buena Park
o Fullerton
o Garden Grove
o Huntington Beach
o La Habra
o Newport Beach
o Orange
o Westminster
• The following jurisdictions have a homeownership rate that is lower than the homeownership rate for the County overall by at least five percentage points, indicating a higher percentage of households are renters:
o Anaheim
o Costa Mesa
o Irvine
o Santa Ana
o Tustin
• The following jurisdictions have a homeownership rate that is higher than the County overall by at least five percentage points:
o The Urban County jurisdictions
o Fountain Valley
o Laguna Niguel
o Lake Forest
o Mission Viejo
o Rancho Santa Margarita
o San Clemente
197
Orange County 22 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 3 – Housing Tenure
198
Orange County 23 25-29 Regional AFH
Cost Burden
Table 4 – Cost Burden shows data on housing cost burden for the region, Orange County, the Orange County Urban County, and each HUD Entitlement City. These data are from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Cost burden is defined as spending more than 30% of monthly gross income on housing-related costs. This table presents the following:

In Orange County overall, over half (53.2%) of all renters are cost burdened. The rate is significantly lower for homeowners (30.3%). These rates are comparable to the experience of owners and renters across the region. Among the jurisdictions, • The following have a comparable rate of cost burdened renters (within five percentage points of the County’s rate)
o The Urban County jurisdictions
o Aliso Viejo
o Buena Park
o Costa Mesa
o Fullerton
o Garden Grove
o Huntington Beach
o Irvine
o Laguna Niguel
o La Habra
o Mission Viejo
o Orange
o Rancho Santa Margarita
o Santa Ana
o Westminster
• The following jurisdictions have a renter cost-burden rate that is lower than the rate for the County overall by at least five percentage points:
o Newport Beach
o San Clemente
• The following jurisdictions have a renter cost-burden rate that is higher than the rate for the County overall, by at least five percentage points, meaning a higher percentage of renters in these jurisdictions are cost burdened compared to the County overall:
o Anaheim
o Fountain Valley
o Lake Forest
o Tustin
199
Orange County 24 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 4 – Cost Burden
200
Orange County 25 25-29 Regional AFH
Location of Renters and Owners
Map 1 – Housing Tenure. is a series of maps showing the distribution of renter households in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange County. These maps were produced by California HCD to facilitate the fair housing planning process 5F 6 . On the maps,
the darker shaded areas have a higher proportion of renter households. These maps reflect the following:
• In Orange County overall, renters are concentrated in the north, west, and central parts of the County. Moving east and south from the border with Los Angeles County, a higher percentage of housing units are owner-occupied.

Within the participating jurisdictions, there are concentrations of renter-occupied and owner-occupied housing in the following areas:
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions there are relatively few areas with a high percentage of renter households, with the exceptions of Placentia, which has high concentrations of renter households in the southwest corner of the city and in parts of the city near CSU-Fullerton; and Los Alamitos, which has a high concentration of renters in the neighborhood north of Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos and west of Lexington Drive. Conversely, there are various parts of the Urban County jurisdictions with relatively high concentrations of owner households, including Yorba Linda and the unincorporated area to the east of Yorba Linda, North Tustin, Seal Beach (outside the Naval Weapons Station), Rossmoor, Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, and Northwest Brea.
• In Aliso Viejo there is a relatively high percentage of renter households south of SR73 between Aliso Viejo Parkway and Woodfield Park, and a relatively high percentage of owner households along the southern and western edges of city, south of SR-73 and west of Pacific Park Drive and Wood Canyon Drive.
• In Anaheim there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the Census Tracts north of SR-91 in Northeast Anaheim; between the Convention Center and I5, and around Angel Stadium, in the southeastern part of the city; and in the Census Tract south of I-5 bounded by Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst Street, in the northwestern part of the city. There is a relatively high percentage of owner households in Anaheim Hills.
• In Buena Park there is a relatively high percentage of renters in the Census Tracts just north of I-5.
6 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 201
Orange County 26 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Costa Mesa there are relatively high concentrations of renter households north of SR-55 in the downtown area, and west of Orange Coast College; and there is a relatively high percentage of owner households north of Adams Avenue. • In Fountain Valley there are relatively high percentages of owner households in the neighborhoods south of Talbert Avenue and west of Brookhurst Street, and in the neighborhood just to the west of Mile Square Regional Park. • In Fullerton there are relatively high percentages of renter households in and around CSU Fullerton and along Highland Ave between SR-91 and Orangethorpe Avenue (adjacent to the Fullerton Metrocenter shopping mall); and there are relatively high percentages of owner households in Census Tracts between CSU Fullerton and Brea Boulevard, and between Harbor Boulevard and the Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve. • In Garden Grove, there is a relatively high percentage of owner households in West Garden Grove, compared to the rest of the city.
• In Huntington Beach there are high percentages of owner households in the eastern half of the city, as well as in the area surrounding the Huntington Club country club. • In Irvine there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the southwestern part of the city—specifically in the Census Tracts west of Harvard Ave, around San Remo Park, and north of UC Irvine in University Town Center; and near the I-5/I-405 interchange—specifically in the Census Tracts encompassing the Irvine Medical and Science Complex, the Irvine Spectrum Center, and East Irvine. • In La Habra there are a relatively high percentage of owner households in the neighborhoods south of SR-90 and west of Euclid St.
• In Laguna Niguel there are relatively high percentages of owner households in the southeast corner of the city (bordering San Juan Capistrano and Dana Point), adjacent to the El Niguel County Club, and in the neighborhoods between Crown Valley Pkwy and Alicia Pkwy.
• In Lake Forest there are relatively high percentages of owner households in the northeast of the city (to the north of SR-24) and in the southwest of the city (south of Trabuco Rd and west of Ridge Route Dr).
• In Mission Viejo there are relatively high percentages of owner households throughout the city, with some renters located in the southern part of the city. • In Newport Beach there is a relatively high percentage of owner households in the Newport Coast community, and a relatively high percentage of renters around the Newport Beach Country Club.
• In the City of Orange there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the southwestern corner of the city, west of SR-57 and I-5, and relatively high percentages of owner households in the eastern half of the city. • In Rancho Santa Margarita there is a relatively high percentage of owner households throughout the city, with some renters located in the neighborhoods just to the east of SR-241 between Antonio Pkwy and Santa Margarita Pkwy. 202
Orange County 27 25-29 Regional AFH
• In San Clemente there is a relatively high percentage of renter households in the neighborhoods south of Max Berg Plaza Park, and relatively high percentages of homeowners in a number of neighborhoods to the north and northwest. • In Santa Ana there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the downtown area and in the neighborhoods southeast of downtown. • In Tustin there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the neighborhoods adjacent to SR-55 south of I-5, and relatively high percentages of owner households in the northeast part of the city.
• In Westminster there are relatively high percentages of renters in the neighborhoods just north and south of Westminster Blvd between Hoover St. and Beach Blvd.

Map 1 – Housing Tenure – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
203
Orange County 28 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 1 – Housing Tenure – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
204
Orange County 29 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 1 – Housing Tenure – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
205
Orange County 30 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 1 – Housing Tenure – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
206
Orange County 31 25-29 Regional AFH
The following analysis describes the demographics of residents of publicly supported housing.

Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity, provides the demographics of residents of different types of publicly support housing programs, including Public Housing, Project-Based Section 8, Other Multifamily, and the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. This table shows that, in Orange County:
• The majority of publicly supported housing is provided through the HCV Program (over 20,000 households with HCVs countywide). Additionally, there are approximately 4,000 units in Project-based Section 8 properties and approximately 100 units in Other Multifamily properties. There are no Public Housing units in the County.
• A significant portion of households with HCVs are headed by an AAPI individual (41.16%), followed by households headed by a White individual (25.32%), then Hispanic-headed households (21.12%), and then Black households (7.06%). • Project-based Section 8 units have a similar racial composition to the HCV Program overall; however, the percentages of households headed by AAPI and White individuals are higher (47.11% and 33.06% respectively), and households headed by Hispanic and Black individuals are lower (15.19% and 1.77% respectively).

Within the participating jurisdictions, the racial/ethnic composition of publicly supported housing units varies:
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, the racial/ethnic composition of households in the HCV Program and in Project-based Section 8 units matches the County overall, with the one exception being that the number of AAPI and White households in Project-based Section 8 units are equal (each comprise 36.75% of those units).
• In Aliso Viejo, the only publicly supported housing available is through the HCV Program. Two-thirds of households using HCVs in the city are White. • In Anaheim, there are Project-based Section 8 developments in addition to households using HCVs. In the Project-based Section 8 units, the majority of households are AAPI. In the HCV Program, Hispanic households make up the largest single group of voucher recipients, followed by AAPI and White households. • In Buena Park, the overwhelming majority of households in Project-based Section 8 units are AAPI. In the HCV Program, approximately one-third of households are Hispanic, 25% AAPI, 25% White, and nearly one-fifth of households are Black. • In Costa Mesa, the majority of households in both Project-based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are White, and there are no Black households in Project-based Section 8 units.
207
Orange County 32 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fountain Valley, the majority of households in both Project-based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are AAPI, and there are no Black households in Project-based Section 8 units.
• In Fullerton, nearly all of the households in Project-based Section 8 units are AAPI and the majority of households in Other Multifamily program units are White. In the HCV Program, White and Hispanic families each make up approximately one-third of households, and Black and AAPI families each make up approximately 14% of households.
• In Garden Grove, a large majority of households in both Project-based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are AAPI (over 80% in each program). • In Huntington Beach, over 50% of households in Project-based Section 8 units are AAPI and around one-third are White. In the HCV Program, over 40% of households are White and around one-third are AAPI.
• In Irvine, White households are the majority in Project-based Section 8 and Other Multifamily program units and are the largest share of households in the HCV Program (46.76%). In the HCV Program, Black households are the second largest racial/ethnic group, comprising approximately one-fifth of households. • In La Habra, Hispanic households are the majority of HCV Program participants. The second largest racial/ethnic group is White households, who comprise 25% of households in the program. In Project-based Section 8 units, Hispanic, White, and AAPI each comprise approximately one-third of households. • In Laguna Niguel, the majority of households in both Project-based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are White.
• In Lake Forest, the majority of households in the HCV Program are White. There are no other types of publicly supported housing in the city. • In Mission Viejo, the majority of households in the HCV Program are White. There are no other types of publicly supported housing included in the HUD-provided data. (However, per the City’s Housing Element and other local sources, there are various publicly supported housing developments in the city.)
• In Newport Beach, the majority of households in both Project-based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are White.
• In Orange, White and Hispanic households each comprise a slightly more than 40% of households in Project-based Section 8 units, and approximately one-third of households in the HCV Program. AAPI households make up around 25% of households in the HCV Program.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, the majority of households in the HCV Program are White. There are no other types of publicly supported housing in the city. • In San Clemente, the majority of households in both Project-based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are White.
208
Orange County 33 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Santa Ana, the majority of households in Project-based Section 8 units and in the HCV Program are AAPI. The second largest racial/ethnic group in each of these programs is Hispanic households.
• In Tustin, the majority of households in Project-based Section 8 units are AAPI (over 70%) and approximately one-fifth are White. In the HCV Program, Hispanic households are the largest group (38%), followed by White households (33%). • In Westminster, AAPI households are the majority in both Project-based Section 8 units and in the HCV Program.
209
Orange County 34 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 653 6.67% 2,696 27.54% 6,055 61.84% 374 3.82% Project-Based Section 8 9,108 23.49% 6,733 17.37% 10,666 27.51% 12,058 31.10% Other Multifamily 1,706 32.43% 450 8.55% 1,173 22.30% 1,909 36.29% HCV Program 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total Households 1,741,265 40.51% 332,330 7.73% 1,458,220 33.92% 666,628 15.51% 0-30% of AMI 242,025 29.00% 96,395 11.55% 355,100 42.55% 122,168 14.64% 0-50% of AMI 425,645 28.94% 149,340 10.16% 661,570 44.99% 203,018 13.81% 0-80% of AMI 682,980 30.49% 208,645 9.31% 990,690 44.22% 310,058 13.84% Orange County, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 1,362 33.06% 73 1.77% 626 15.19% 1,941 47.11% Other Multifamily 71 68.27% 8 7.69% 10 9.62% 6 5.77%
HCV Program 5,776 25.32% 1,610 7.06% 4,819 21.12% 9,390 41.16% Total Households 537,517 51.84% 16,903 1.63% 241,657 23.30% 186,863 18.02% 0-30% of AMI 63,893 40.68% 2,935 1.87% 52,308 33.30% 34,051 21.68% 0-50% of AMI 119,885 41.29% 5,251 1.81% 102,916 35.45% 55,867 19.24% 0-80% of AMI 206,268 43.82% 8,396 1.78% 160,512 34.10% 85,187 18.10% Orange County Urban County
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 154 36.75% 11 2.63% 96 22.91% 154 36.75% Other Multifamily 21 87.50% 0 0.00% 3 12.50% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 729 31.81% 164 7.16% 420 18.35% 969 42.30%
Total Households 123,567 64.87% 3,074 1.61% 30,302 15.91% 29,493 15.48% 0-30% of AMI 14,141 57.02% 339 1.37% 5,608 22.61% 4,234 17.07% 0-50% of AMI 27,749 57.61% 644 1.34% 10,983 22.80% 7,883 16.36% 0-80% of AMI 46,897 59.09% 1,298 1.64% 17,045 21.48% 12,551 15.82% Aliso Viejo, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 109 66.09% 17 10.60% 23 13.90% 14 8.60%
Total Households 12,570 67.58% 380 2.04% 2,120 11.40% 2,830 15.22% 0-30% of AMI 960 67.37% 85 5.96% 100 7.02% 205 14.39%
0-50% of AMI 1,675 66.07% 180 7.10% 195 7.69% 385 15.19% 0-80% of AMI 3,540 65.98% 250 4.66% 555 10.34% 770 14.35% Anaheim, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 58 21.48% 14 5.19% 51 18.89% 146 54.07% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 1,273 26.52% 430 8.96% 1,788 37.25% 1,290 26.89% Total Households 36,390 36.39% 2,688 2.69% 41,509 41.51% 17,464 17.46% 0-30% of AMI 5,410 26.79% 670 3.32% 10,364 51.32% 3,345 16.56% 0-50% of AMI 10,610 27.99% 1,214 3.20% 19,969 52.68% 5,429 14.32% 0-80% of AMI 17,010 28.83% 1,723 2.92% 30,514 51.72% 8,554 14.50% Buena Park, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 13 11.40% 1 0.88% 5 4.39% 95 83.33% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 174 24.25% 127 17.65% 232 32.25% 184 25.54% Total Households 7,540 32.34% 835 3.58% 7,705 33.05% 6,830 29.29% 0-30% of AMI 885 21.74% 250 6.14% 1,545 37.96% 1,300 31.94% 0-50% of AMI 1,820 22.28% 315 3.86% 3,590 43.94% 2,270 27.78% 0-80% of AMI 3,180 25.68% 515 4.16% 5,020 40.53% 3,440 27.78% White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Asian or Pacific Islander
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals. 210
Orange County 35 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity (continued) Costa Mesa, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 69 65.09% 0 0.00% 19 17.92% 18 16.98% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 376 57.17% 23 3.50% 107 16.24% 149 22.64%
Total Households 25,230 61.75% 695 1.70% 10,105 24.73% 3,870 9.47% 0-30% of AMI 3,720 54.35% 105 1.53% 2,380 34.77% 480 7.01% 0-50% of AMI 6,395 51.45% 175 1.41% 4,680 37.65% 955 7.68% 0-80% of AMI 10,960 53.71% 285 1.40% 6,955 34.08% 1,800 8.82% Fountain Valley, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 10 14.29% 0 0.00% 1 1.43% 59 84.29% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 99 19.23% 6 1.21% 44 8.55% 363 70.42%
Total Households 10,409 55.16% 175 0.93% 2,166 11.48% 5,794 30.70% 0-30% of AMI 1,305 49.25% 0 0.00% 227 8.57% 1,015 38.30% 0-50% of AMI 2,299 51.26% 25 0.56% 472 10.52% 1,539 34.31% 0-80% of AMI 4,214 52.51% 70 0.87% 1,036 12.91% 2,529 31.51% Fullerton, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 5 5.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.00% 94 94.00% Other Multifamily 38 79.17% 3 6.25% 5 10.42% 2 4.17%
HCV Program 264 38.23% 96 13.99% 232 33.64% 95 13.71%
Total Households 20,005 44.40% 1,448 3.21% 11,890 26.39% 10,615 23.56% 0-30% of AMI 3,305 37.49% 344 3.90% 2,835 32.16% 2,100 23.82% 0-50% of AMI 5,515 37.14% 434 2.92% 5,350 36.03% 3,205 21.58% 0-80% of AMI 9,305 38.61% 789 3.27% 8,375 34.75% 4,965 20.60% Garden Grove, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 34 13.28% 3 1.17% 4 1.56% 215 83.98% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 133 4.98% 35 1.30% 219 8.24% 2,270 85.23%
Total Households 14,254 29.92% 592 1.24% 13,550 28.44% 18,417 38.66% 0-30% of AMI 2,160 20.26% 165 1.55% 3,100 29.08% 5,054 47.42% 0-50% of AMI 3,865 20.48% 204 1.08% 6,200 32.86% 8,244 43.69% 0-80% of AMI 7,080 23.55% 303 1.01% 10,125 33.68% 12,043 40.06% Huntington Beach, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 133 35.00% 4 1.05% 41 10.79% 200 52.63% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 461 42.58% 50 4.61% 166 15.36% 399 36.88%
Total Households 53,650 71.15% 753 1.00% 10,855 14.40% 8,114 10.76% 0-30% of AMI 5,730 60.89% 115 1.22% 2,140 22.74% 1,220 12.96% 0-50% of AMI 11,035 62.66% 183 1.04% 3,905 22.17% 2,105 11.95% 0-80% of AMI 20,055 65.89% 323 1.06% 6,110 20.08% 3,205 10.53% Irvine, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 428 59.03% 24 3.31% 42 5.79% 231 31.86% Other Multifamily 12 52.17% 5 21.74% 2 8.70% 4 17.39%
HCV Program 682 46.76% 282 19.34% 246 16.84% 243 16.67% Total Households 45,515 50.61% 1,800 2.00% 6,788 7.55% 33,230 36.95% 0-30% of AMI 6,055 45.27% 230 1.72% 1,145 8.56% 5,260 39.33% 0-50% of AMI 9,580 46.56% 510 2.48% 1,939 9.42% 7,670 37.28% 0-80% of AMI 16,010 49.11% 625 1.92% 2,959 9.08% 11,750 36.04% White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals. 211
Orange County 36 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity (continued) Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals. 212
Orange County 37 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity (continued) Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 87 62.31% 21 14.87% 24 17.06% 6 4.50%
Total Households 11,890 69.59% 285 1.67% 2,674 15.65% 1,855 10.86% 0-30% of AMI 1,095 66.57% 0 0.00% 440 26.75% 60 3.65%
0-50% of AMI 1,855 61.22% 50 1.65% 805 26.57% 215 7.10% 0-80% of AMI 3,525 65.58% 65 1.21% 1,295 24.09% 355 6.60% San Clemente, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 52 73.24% 0 0.00% 9 12.68% 9 12.68% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 100 72.35% 5 3.82% 26 18.61% 6 4.62%
Total Households 19,495 79.56% 130 0.53% 3,264 13.32% 965 3.94% 0-30% of AMI 1,820 67.16% 20 0.74% 605 22.32% 35 1.29%
0-50% of AMI 3,980 70.76% 20 0.36% 1,264 22.47% 65 1.16% 0-80% of AMI 6,420 72.62% 55 0.62% 1,809 20.46% 225 2.55% Santa Ana, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 44 5.47% 9 1.12% 202 25.12% 462 57.46% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 191 10.86% 69 3.89% 537 30.49% 958 54.41%
Total Households 12,430 16.55% 899 1.20% 50,935 67.83% 9,959 13.26% 0-30% of AMI 1,570 8.63% 159 0.87% 13,565 74.59% 2,745 15.09% 0-50% of AMI 3,405 9.76% 299 0.86% 26,460 75.88% 4,400 12.62% 0-80% of AMI 6,150 11.63% 529 1.00% 39,210 74.16% 6,440 12.18% Tustin, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 20 19.42% 0 0.00% 10 9.71% 73 70.87% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 192 33.12% 86 14.95% 219 37.88% 79 13.70%
Total Households 10,485 40.69% 604 2.34% 7,710 29.92% 6,084 23.61% 0-30% of AMI 1,480 39.31% 160 4.25% 1,465 38.91% 589 15.64% 0-50% of AMI 2,660 34.08% 240 3.07% 3,535 45.29% 1,134 14.53% 0-80% of AMI 4,595 34.93% 375 2.85% 5,965 45.34% 1,874 14.25% Westminster, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 3 3.03% 0 0.00% 1 1.01% 95 95.96% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 122 5.13% 21 0.87% 103 4.33% 2,131 89.46%
Total Households 9,270 34.01% 203 0.74% 5,165 18.95% 12,121 44.47% 0-30% of AMI 1,595 22.62% 14 0.20% 1,195 16.95% 4,154 58.92% 0-50% of AMI 2,800 23.64% 24 0.20% 2,260 19.08% 6,599 55.71% 0-80% of AMI 4,685 27.38% 79 0.46% 3,630 21.22% 8,397 49.08% White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals.

White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
213
Orange County 38 25-29 Regional AFH
B. Segregation/Concentration and Integration
The following analysis describes segregation/concentration levels, identifies the racial/ethnic groups that experience the highest levels of segregation/concentration, and explains how these levels and patterns have changed over time.

Table 6 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends, displays how segregated/concentrated or integrated various racial/ethnic groups are in the region, the Orange County Urban County, and the HUD Entitlement Cities using a Dissimilarity Index, which is calculated using data from the 2010 Decennial Census. The Dissimilarity Index measures the degree to which two groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area and is commonly used for assessing residential segregation/integration between two groups. Dissimilarity index values indicate the following:
• Values between 0 and 39 generally indicate high integration (low segregation/concentration)
• Values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation/concentration • Values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation/concentration
Please note two key shortcomings of these data:

1. The data only measure segregation between Black and White, Hispanic, and White, and AAPI and White residents. As a result, no conclusions can be drawn regarding segregation among Black, Hispanic, and AAPI residents.

2. The data measure segregation only within each jurisdiction and do provide insights into racial/ethnic segregation across jurisdictional boundaries.

Table 6 shows that, in the region, there are high levels of segregation between Black and White residents and between Hispanic and White residents, and there is moderate segregation between AAPI and White residents. Since 1990, segregation between Black and White residents has declined, while segregation between Hispanic/White and AAPI/White has increased.

In Orange County the following jurisdictions are highly integrated, indicating low levels of segregation/concentration among the groups analyzed:
• The Urban County jurisdictions – While segregation levels are higher compared to 1990, they have trended downward since 2000 for Black/White and Hispanic/White residents.
• Aliso Viejo – Since 1990, concentrations of Hispanic and AAPI residents have been increasing but remain low.
214
Orange County 39 25-29 Regional AFH
• Anaheim – Segregation levels between Black/White and AAPI/White have been increasing since 1990. Segregation level between Hispanic/White were high in 2000 but have since declined.
• Buena Park – Segregation levels have increased since 1990 but remain low. • Fountain Valley – Since 1990, segregation levels between Hispanic/White and between AAPI/White have been increasing but remain low. • Fullerton – Segregation level between AAPI/White is increasing but remains low. • Garden Grove – Segregation levels have increased since 1990 but remain low. • Huntington Beach – Segregation level between Black/White increased between 2000-2010 but remains low.
• Irvine – Segregation levels between the groups analyzed decreased between 2000- 2010.
• La Habra – Since 1990, segregation between Black/White residents has increased, though remains low, and segregation between Hispanic/White and between AAPI/White has decreased.
• Laguna Niguel – Between 1990-2010, concentrations of Black and Hispanic residents increased, though remain low.
• Lake Forest – Between 1990-2010, segregation between Hispanic/White and between AAPI/White increased, though remains low.
• Mission Viejo – Between 1990-2010, concentration of Hispanic residents increased, though remains low.
• Newport Beach – Between 1990-2010, segregation between Hispanic/White and between AAPI/White increased, though remains low.
• Orange – Between 1990-2010, segregation between AAPI/White increased, though remains low.
• Rancho Santa Margarita – Concentration by race/ethnic group has increased since 1990 but remains low.
• Westminster – Segregation levels have increased since 1990 but remain low.

In Orange County the following jurisdictions have moderate levels of segregation between at least two of the racial groups analyzed (no jurisdictions in the County have high levels of segregation):
• Costa Mesa –There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents.

Segregation levels declined slightly between 2000-2010 but remain moderate. • Santa Ana –There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents, and between AAPI and White. Segregation levels between Hispanic/White residents declined slightly between 2000-2010 but remain moderate. Since 1990, segregation between AAPI/White residents has increased.
• Tustin – There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents.

Segregation levels declined between 2000-2010 but remain moderate. 215
Orange County 40 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 - Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 55.32 55.50 54.64 30.48 36.54 35.55 1.79 6.49 8.90 Black/White 72.75 68.12 65.22 32.90 35.33 34.07 15.82 12.66 11.59 Hispanic/White 60.12 62.44 62.15 36.26 42.43 39.52 0.19 14.88 15.67 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 43.46 46.02 45.77 32.65 36.76 37.16 0.31 4.86 7.94 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 29.33 31.57 31.56 18.17 22.07 21.40 29.84 36.88 34.33 Black/White 22.16 25.87 27.69 21.76 23.51 25.25 30.17 27.07 27.67 Hispanic/White 38.77 40.24 38.70 26.64 33.21 30.85 34.52 45.33 41.88 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.23 17.28 21.53 11.56 13.87 16.44 30.36 31.94 30.59 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 14.25 22.27 23.54 25.53 31.16 30.52 25.05 31.79 32.16 Black/White 27.24 27.57 26.28 30.60 31.84 26.53 22.19 23.11 23.45 Hispanic/White 21.64 28.33 29.59 33.72 39.98 38.28 27.67 32.64 33.20 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.85 22.12 23.58 30.41 33.48 35.24 27.45 34.97 33.98 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 21.11 23.44 21.58 16.49 21.55 18.01 28.18 26.72 24.14 Black/White 21.45 19.99 24.20 42.99 27.84 19.37 12.56 13.25 19.36 Hispanic/White 28.10 33.37 30.09 21.98 22.79 17.88 33.93 30.96 28.59 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 22.86 20.11 18.25 18.18 22.57 18.73 40.48 38.69 36.53 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 9.17 12.98 16.34 9.39 15.38 17.28 13.67 15.17 15.75 Black/White 13.82 22.75 16.24 12.43 12.16 9.52 18.03 20.63 16.83 Hispanic/White 13.34 20.76 22.79 15.72 26.10 27.63 12.26 18.75 20.96 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.37 12.68 13.82 8.84 11.06 13.46 20.00 16.83 13.98 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 13.20 15.04 17.04 23.75 24.25 22.59 5.43 12.26 14.07 Black/White 21.92 19.85 15.96 24.17 24.63 24.89 7.18 12.64 13.35 Hispanic/White 14.33 18.29 18.21 30.31 29.99 26.95 5.73 19.52 23.13 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 22.99 23.74 25.92 19.44 22.28 22.53 6.70 8.56 9.55 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 21.89 25.93 16.76 47.77 49.28 46.49 26.33 36.73 32.93 Black/White 13.86 19.08 14.93 36.53 27.91 25.15 42.49 35.11 29.02 Hispanic/White 27.16 32.90 23.71 53.09 53.61 50.00 31.13 48.20 42.54 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 14.66 14.76 16.56 43.10 46.77 46.87 19.20 17.74 19.76 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 24.58 28.05 31.59
Black/White 11.56 14.18 17.62
Hispanic/White 30.31 29.74 31.83
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 23.15 29.73 34.65
Lake Forest, CA
Note 1: Data Source: Decennial Census, accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 3, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Westminster, CA
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
San Clemente, CA Santa Ana, CA Tustin, CA
Orange, CA
Mission Viejo, CA
Newport Beach, CA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA Aliso Viejo, CA
Anaheim, CA Buena Park, CA Costa Mesa, CA
Orange County Urban County
Garden Grove, CA
Huntington Beach, CA Irvine, CA La Habra, CA
Laguna Niguel, CA
Fountain Valley, CA Fullerton, CA
216
Orange County 41 25-29 Regional AFH
The following analysis identifies areas with relatively high segregation/concentration and integration and indicates the predominant groups living in each area.

Race/Ethnicity
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration, is a series of maps showing racial/ethnic concentrations in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange County. These maps are published by California HCD using methodology from the Othering & Belonging Institute, which combines various measures of segregation and integration (including a dissimilarity index), and uses data from 2020. On these maps, dark red indicates areas where people of color (POC) experience high levels of segregation/concentration; green indicates areas where White residents experience high levels of segregation/concentration; yellow indicates areas that are racially/ethnically integrated.

Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity, is a series of maps showing the predominant racial/ethnic group by Census Tract in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange County. The colors indicate different racial/ethnic groups, and the relative strength of the shading indicates the extent to which one group is dominant over the next most populous group (with darker shading indicating a higher concentration of that racial/ethnic group). These maps were created by California HCD using 2017-2021 ACS data, to facilitate fair housing planning. 6F
7 Collectively, the maps illustrate that in Orange County overall, there are areas of high POC segregation/concentration in the central and northern parts of the County (including the cities of Santa Ana, Westminster, Garden Grove, Anaheim, and Fullerton), and there are areas of high White segregation/concentration along the entire coast (including Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Dana Paint, Capistrano Beach, and San Clemente) and in the southern part of the County (including Mission Viejo, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, and Rancho Santa Margarita).

Within each participating jurisdiction, there are areas of high segregation/integration in the following locations:
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o There are areas of high White segregation in Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, the unincorporated areas east of Rancho Santa Margarita, North Tustin, Seal Beach, Yorba Linda, northern Placentia, Villa Park, and Orange Park Acres.
o There are areas of high POC segregation in Stanton (which are predominantly Hispanic or AAPI), Cypress (which are predominantly AAPI), northern Yorba 7 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 217
Orange County 42 25-29 Regional AFH
Linda (which are predominantly AAPI), La Palma (which are predominantly AAPI), and San Juan Capistrano (which is predominantly Hispanic). o There are areas of integration including the Atwood neighborhood in Placentia, which is predominantly Hispanic; Brea just northwest of the SR90/SR-57 interchange, which is a predominantly Hispanic area; and in Los Alamitos, in the neighborhood north of Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos and west of Lexington Drive, which is predominantly Hispanic. • In Aliso Viejo, most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration (which are predominantly White) in the northern and eastern parts of the city. • In Anaheim, the map shows integrated areas in Southeast Anaheim (where Hispanic residents are the predominant group), in western Anaheim west of Brookhurst Street (where Hispanic residents are the predominant group in many neighborhoods, and AAPI residents are the predominant group in a few others), and in the neighborhoods between Modjeska Park and Palm Lane Park in the Hermosa Village community (where Hispanic residents are the predominant group). The map shows another integrated area in Northeast Anaheim, to the north of SR-91. However, this is primarily an industrial/commercial area. The city also has neighborhoods of high POC segregation, including the neighborhoods north of downtown and along SR91, and neighborhoods south of downtown and adjacent to Disneyland. These areas are predominantly Hispanic. The Anaheim Hills area demonstrates a high White segregation.
• In Buena Park, most of the city is considered an area of low-medium segregation with the exception of the following areas: the northeast corner of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation and is predominantly AAPI; the neighborhood between I-5, Artesia Boulevard, Beach Boulevard, and the Los Angeles County border is also considered an area of high POC segregation, and is predominantly Hispanic; and the neighborhoods south of Boisseranc Park between Dale Street and the nurseries, is considered a racially integrated area. • In Costa Mesa, the neighborhoods between downtown and the Costa Mesa Country Club are areas of high POC segregation, with a predominantly Hispanic population.

The neighborhoods in East Side Costa Mesa (east of SR-55 and south of Mesa Drive) are all areas of high White segregation, as are the neighborhoods north of the Country Club and the neighborhoods between Estancia High School and Canyon Park.
• In Fountain Valley, the majority of Census Tracts are considered areas of high POC segregation, and many have a predominantly AAPI population (particularly north of Warner Avenue). The neighborhoods surrounding the intersection of Magnolia Street and Ellis Avenue in the city’s southwest, and between Brookhurst Street and Ward Street south of I-405, are considered areas of high White segregation. 218
Orange County 43 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fullerton, there are various neighborhoods that are considered racially integrated, including in the area around CSU Fullerton and extending west to Fullerton College, and in the southwest area of the city. There are also areas considered to have high POC segregation, including most of the neighborhoods west of Harbor Boulevard and north of Malvern Avenue, which are predominantly AAPI areas. • In Garden Grove, the majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation except for West Garden Grove. In West Garden Grove, the residential neighborhoods west of Knott Street are considered areas of high White segregation.

East of Knott Street is primarily industrial and commercial land uses. In the high POC segregation areas, AAPI residents are the predominant group west of 9th Street and Hispanic residents are the predominant group east of there. • In Huntington Beach, most of the city’s neighborhoods are predominantly White, with the exception of one Census Tract in the center of the city that is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Irvine, there are a number of Census Tracts considered to be areas of high POC segregation, some of which are predominantly AAPI and others are predominantly White. These areas include the neighborhoods between I-405 and UC Irvine, the Westpark community north of I-405, the neighborhoods between Como Channel and I-5, and the Northwood community north of I-5. There are also areas of high White segregation in Irvine, including the neighborhood bounded by Turtle Rock Drive the area surrounding the Strawberry Farms Golf Club, the Woodbridge community north of I-405, and the neighborhood west of the Oak Creek Golf Club. Please note that data was unavailable for many parts of the city, as indicated by the grey shading. • In La Habra, there are various neighborhoods considered to have high POC segregation, including neighborhoods in the center of the city north of Guadalupe Park and between Idaho Street to the west and Sonora High School to the east. These neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic. The city also has two racially integrated areas, one that extends across its border to the west (between SR-90 and the railroad tracks) and another that extends across its border to the south (south of SR-90 and east of Euclid St).
• In Laguna Niguel, most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration (which are predominantly White) in the northeastern and eastern parts of the city. • In Lake Forest, most of the city’s neighborhoods have a predominantly White population. There are predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods in the southeast corner of the city, along El Toro Road, and the northwest corner of the city is predominantly AAPI.
• In Mission Viejo, most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration in the southern, northern, and western parts of the city.
219
Orange County 44 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Newport Beach, the entire city is classified as an area of high White segregation. • In Orange, most of the city to the north and east of Villa Park is considered an area of high White segregation, and most of the city to the south and west of Villa Park is considered an area of low-medium POC segregation. In the low-medium segregation areas, the neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic west of Glassel Street with a high concentration of Hispanic residents in the neighborhoods north of Walnut Avenue. The neighborhoods between Glassel Street and SR-55 are predominantly White, and the neighborhoods east of SR-55 and south of Villa Park are predominantly Hispanic. There is one area in the city that is considered integrated. This area lies to the south of Villa Park and runs south along Santiago Creek and east along the northside of Chapman Avenue toward El Modena. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration (which are predominantly White) in the neighborhoods east of SR-241 between Antonio Parkway and Santa Margarita Parkway.
• In San Clemente, the majority of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of one Census Tract encompassing neighborhoods north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park, which is classified as low-medium concentration with a predominantly White population.
• In Santa Ana, the majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation and has a predominantly Hispanic population except for the Riverview West community which is predominantly AAPI. There are some areas of low-medium POC segregation in the city, including the neighborhoods north of I-5, Floral Park, West Floral Park, Fisher Park, Morrison/Eldridge Park, Riverglen, Casa de Santiago, and neighborhoods south of Warner Avenue.There is one integrated area in the southern part of the city between Segerstrom High School and the Bristol Place Shopping Mall, where White residents are the predominant group.
• In Tustin, there are racially integrated neighborhoods just to the north of I-5. These are surrounded by neighborhoods of low-medium segregation that are a mix of predominantly White, Hispanic, and AAPI.
• In Westminster, the majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation and has a predominantly AAPI population with a few exceptions. The northwestern corner of the city, between I-405 and Bolsa Chica Road is an area of high White segregation. Across I-405 from those neighborhoods is an integrated area with a predominantly Hispanic population (west of Edwards Avenue). This area includes mobile home parks near the intersections of SR-22 and I-405. 220
Orange County 45 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
221
Orange County 46 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – North Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
222
Orange County 47 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – Central Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
223
Orange County 48 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – South Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
224
Orange County 49 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – Region Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
225
Orange County 50 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – North Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
226
Orange County 51 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – Central Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
227
Orange County 52 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – South Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis compares the locations of publicly supported housing with the areas of concentration.

Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing, is a series of maps showing the location of federaland state-subsidized housing in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange County. These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using data from California Housing Partnership7F
8 . On the maps, the size of each dot
correlates to the number of publicly-supported housing units in an area—larger dots indicate higher numbers of units. The shading of the Census Tracts indicates the percentage of renter occupied housing units in that Tract that are supported by a HCV, including both tenant-based and project-based vouchers. The darker shading indicates higher percentages of vouchers.

The locations of publicly supported housing on these maps align with the areas of segregation and integration on Map 2 (Racial/Ethnic Segregation/Integration), in the following places:
8 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 228
Orange County 53 25-29 Regional AFH
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o There is overlap between the location of publicly supported housing, including a high rate of voucher use, and areas of high POC segregation in the following places:
▪ Cypress – in the neighborhood around King Elementary School, in the north of the city.
▪ Placentia – in the southwest corner of the city
▪ Stanton – throughout the city
▪ San Juan Capistrano – in the Census Tract that encompasses the interchange between I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74)
o There is overlap between areas without any publicly supported housing and either low HCV use or no data on HCV use, and areas of high White segregation, the following places:
▪ Rossmoor, Seal Beach, North Tustin, Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, North Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, and Dana Point
• In Aliso Viejo, there are publicly supported units and higher percentages of units with vouchers in the south of city, which is an area of high White concentration. • In Anaheim, there are multiple publicly supported housing developments downtown and north of downtown, which are high POC segregation areas. The map also shows a concentration of vouchers in the high POC segregation area between Santa Ana River and Orangethorpe Avenue, east of Anaheim Canyon Metrolink station and west of Imperial Highway (SR-90). However, this is largely a commercial/industrial area with few housing units. In the western part of the city, around Western High School, there is also a cluster of publicly supported housing developments in a racially integrated area.
• In Buena Park, most publicly supported housing units are located in between I-5 and the Artesia Freeway (SR-91), which is a low-medium segregation area like most of the city.
• In Costa Mesa, the largest number of publicly supported housing units and the highest concentration of vouchers is in high POC segregation area located downtown and west of downtown.
• In Fountain Valley, the location of publicly supported housing units and highest concentrations of vouchers mirrors the high POC segregation areas. • In Fullerton, publicly supported housing units are mostly clustered in the center of the city, which is a low-medium segregation area.
• In Garden Grove, there are lots of publicly supported housing units in the center of city along Garden Grove Boulevard, which is a high POC segregation area.

There are no publicly supported housing units in West Garden Grove, which is an area of high White segregation.
229
Orange County 54 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Huntington Beach, the map shows publicly supported housing units located in the center of the city. Local data identify affordable housing projects distributed broadly across the city.
• In Irvine, the high POC segregation areas north of I-405 overlap with the location of publicly supported housing units. In other parts of the city where there is high voucher use and multiple publicly supported housing developments, there is no segregation data available.
• In La Habra, publicly supported housing units are located in the city’s center and north neighborhoods, which are all low-medium or high POC segregation areas. • In Laguna Niguel, the map shows one public supported housing development (near the intersection of Pacific Park Drive and La Paz Road) and a small concentration of voucher use in northwest part of city, which is a low-medium concentration area. City staff report that another development in the western part of the City also receives vouchers.
• In Lake Forest, there are publicly supported housing units in the northwest, near the intersection of SR-241 and Alton Parkway.There are a smaller number of units in the south of the city, along El Toro Road.
• In Mission Viejo, the map shows two publicly supported housing developments in the southern part of the city. One of these developments, in the southeast, aligns with a low-medium concentration area. City staff report that there are additional publicly supported housing developments that are not reflected in the HUD-provided data.
• In Newport Beach, there are two publicly supported housing developments (one east and one west of Newport Center), both of which are in high White segregation areas.
• In Orange, all publicly supported housing units and households with vouchers are located to the west and south of Villa Park (which are low-medium segregation areas). There are no units or vouchers in use to the east of Villa Park, where it is a high White segregation area.The largest publicly supported housing development (biggest blue dot) is in the integrated area to the south of Villa Park, running south along Santiago Creek and east along the northside of Chapman Avenue towards El Modena.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, there are no publicly supported housing units. There are some vouchers in use in the northeast part of the city that is a low-medium concentration area
• In San Clemente, there is a cluster of publicly supported housing units in the lowmedium concentration area north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park. • In Santa Ana, a significant number of publicly supported housing units are located downtown and southeast of downtown, both of which are high POC segregation areas. There is a higher concentration of vouchers, as well as some publicly 230
Orange County 55 25-29 Regional AFH
supported housing units, west of the Santa Ana River, which is also a high POC segregation area.
• In Tustin, there is a large concentration of publicly supported housing units in the south. Segregation data for this area are unavailable; however, according to Map 3 (Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity) the population is predominantly AAPI. • In Westminster, the location of publicly supported housing units and areas with highest concentration of vouchers aligns with the high POC segregation areas in the central part of the city. There are no publicly supported housing units, and fewer vouchers in use, in the western parts of the city that are high White segregation, racially integrated, and low-medium segregation areas.

Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
231
Orange County 56 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – Region (HCV Only)
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
232
Orange County 57 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – North Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
233
Orange County 58 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – Central Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
234
Orange County 59 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – South Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, or other factors that may have caused or contributed to the patterns described above (including siting decisions of private or publicly supported housing or the location of residents using Housing Choice Vouchers).

Broadly speaking, the patterns of residential segregation/concentration by race – both between and within jurisdictions in Orange County and across the United States – are due, in part, to:
• Historic practices of redlining and legal racial segregation, which created many of the residential patterns that still exist today.
• Local land use and zoning laws that have perpetuated patterns of racial segregation, some of which remain in place, while others which have been removed but continue to have lasting effects.
• Market factors, including the high cost of land and existing housing throughout Orange County, constrain the development of new affordable housing and limit access for families to existing housing.
235
Orange County 60 25-29 Regional AFH
• Discrimination in the private housing market, including source-of-income discrimination, driven in part by a lack of knowledge of state and federal fair housing laws and regulations, which in turn limits housing mobility. • There are numerous ethnic enclaves of Hispanic, Vietnamese, Chinese, and other groups throughout Orange County. These enclaves provide a sense of community and a social network that may help newcomers preserve their cultural identities.

However, these active choices should not obscure the significant impact of structural barriers to fair housing choice and discrimination.

Through the stakeholder consultations and community meetings, it was also reported that segregation/concentration patterns in the County are due to:
• In addition to landlord resistance to renting to HCV Program participants, the gap between HCV subsidy amounts and housing costs further inhibits HCV Program participants from accessing housing in higher cost (and higher opportunity) areas. • Lack of housing mobility for some minority groups based on a lack of credit history coupled with high demand for affordable housing across the County, which permits landlords and property management companies to prioritize applicants based on credit history.

Detailed lists of the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, and other factors that have caused or contributed to segregation/concentration in each of the jurisdictions are included in Section IV.

C. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) The following analysis identifies R/ECAPs and/or groupings of R/ECAP tracts.

HUD defines racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) as Census Tracts that meet both of the following criteria:
• a non-White population of 50 percent or more, and
• a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or a poverty rate that is three or more times the average Tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.

The analysis in this report uses a measure of segregation and concentrated poverty created by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California HCD. The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map’s poverty concentration and racial segregation filter aligns with HUD's R/ECAP methodology but is designed to more effectively reflect the level of racial and ethnic diversity in many parts of California. This measure uses the following criteria to define Census Tracts as “High Segregation and Poverty” areas:
• Tracts and rural block groups where at least 30 percent of the population is living below the poverty level (note that college and graduate students are removed from 236
Orange County 61 25-29 Regional AFH
the poverty calculation in the filter in Census Tracts where they comprise at least 25% of the population); and
• Tracts that have a Location Quotient (LQ) higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or all people of color. The LQ measures relative segregation by calculating how much more segregated a Census Tract is relative to a larger area (in this case, the County).

Compared to the measure used by HUD (which is an absolute threshold of nonWhite population in a Census Tract), this measure better captures inequality operating on individuals at the neighborhood level.

Map 5 – High Segregation and Poverty Areas, indicates racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty in Orange County (note that the only R/ECAP areas are located in the central part of the County). This map was created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map data. This map shows R/ECAPs in the following areas:
• Placentia – in the southwestern corner of the city, south of Orangethorpe Avenue • Anaheim – northeast of Disneyland, along Ball Road and I-5 • Garden Grove – in the northern part of the city to between Brookhurst Street and Gilbert Street, north of Chapman Avenue
• Santa Ana – covering multiple Census Tracts in the downtown • Costa Mesa – on the west side of downtown and the area southwest of downtown (between Newport Avenue (SR-55) and Placentia Avenue, south of 19th Street). 237
Orange County 62 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 5 – High Segregation and Poverty Areas – Central Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes and identifies the predominant protected classes residing in R/ECAPs, and how these demographics compare with the overall demographics of the area.

To identify the predominant protected classes residing in R/ECAPs and compare them to the overall demographics of the surrounding areas, we look at the areas designated as “High Segregation and Poverty” on Map 5 (High Segregation and Poverty Areas) in relation to the demographic information on Map 3 (Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity). The analysis finds that R/ECAPs in Orange County are predominantly Hispanic. Specifically, • In Placentia, the R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic, as are the neighborhoods to the west and south in Fullerton and Anaheim. The neighborhoods to the east are predominantly White.
• In Anaheim, the R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic, as are all the surrounding neighborhoods.
• In Costa Mesa, the R/ECAP area is predominantly Hispanic, as are the adjacent neighborhoods to the north and west. The Census Tracts to the east, across Newport Avenue, are all predominantly White.
• In Garden Grove, the R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic and is surrounded by Census Tracts that are predominantly AAPI.
238
Orange County 63 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Santa Ana, the R/ECAP Tracts are predominantly Hispanic, as are all the surrounding neighborhoods.

The following analysis describes how R/ECAPs align with the location of publicly supported housing.

Map 6 - Publicly Supported Housing and R/ECAPs, shows the location of public-supported housing in Orange County in comparison to the location of the R/ECAPs (outlined in red).

This map shows no overarching patterns between the location of publicly supported housing and R/ECAPs.
• In Placentia, the R/ECAP area is home to one public housing development of 50-100 units, and between 5-15% of renter-occupied units in the Tract utilize a voucher— which is similar to other Tracts in the city.
• In Anaheim, there are no publicly supported housing units in the R/ECAP Tract, and fewer than 5% of renter-occupied units in the R/ECAP Tract utilize a voucher. • In Costa Mesa, the largest publicly supported housing development in the city is located on the northern boundary of the R/ECAP area. There is no data on voucher usage in the Tract.
• In Garden Grove, 15-30% of renter-occupied units in the R/ECAP tract utilize a voucher, which is similar to a number of other non-R/ECAPTracts in the city. There are no publicly supported housing developments in the R/ECAP Tract. • In Santa Ana, fewer than 5% of renter-occupied housing units in the R/ECAP areas utilize a voucher; however, there are various publicly supported housing developments within the boundaries of the R/ECAP area.
239
Orange County 64 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 6 - Publicly Supported Housing and R/ECAPs
Source: Created by authors using map from California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer 240
Orange County 65 25-29 Regional AFH
The following analysis describes the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, or other factors that may have caused or contributed to the patterns described above.

In the most recent Housing Elements prepared and adopted by each jurisdiction, the following factors were identified that contribute to the existence of R/ECAPs in these jurisdictions.

In Placentia:
• Lack of affordable housing, which limits housing mobility. • Limited participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. • Land use and development practices that constrain affordable housing development.
• Private discrimination in housing, due in part to a lack of fair housing knowledge and enforcement.

In Anaheim:
• Historic practices of redlining and legal racial segregation have created many of the residential patterns that still exist today. Additionally, the high cost of land and existing housing in Anaheim (and throughout Orange County) are significant constraints to the development of new affordable housing and access for families to existing housing.

In Costa Mesa:
• Housing discrimination, which limits mobility for families. • Lack of affordable housing due to both governmental and market constraints.

In Garden Grove:
• Lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes, due to high land and development costs in the region, public opposition to new development, and land use and zoning laws.
• Housing discrimination, which limits mobility for families. • Limited access to financial services.
• Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency. • Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods.

In Santa Ana:
• Lack of fair housing education and outreach.
• Lack of affordable housing.
241
Orange County 66 25-29 Regional AFH
D. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The following paragraphs analyze disparities in access to opportunity for education, employment, transportation, poverty, environmentally healthy neighborhoods, disability and access, and patterns in any disparities to access to opportunity.

1. Education
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (below), includes a School Proficiency Index, which measures the proximity various racial/ethnic groups have, based on where they live, to neighborhoods with high-performing schools. School proficiency is measured using school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams. The index is based on a range of 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better proximity to highperforming schools.

Table 6 shows the following disparities in access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, there are significant disparities in access to neighborhoods with high performing schools. Access is lowest for Black and Hispanic residents, and highest for White and AAPI residents. Access is especially low for Black residents living below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, Hispanic residents have the least access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools, and this disparity is even more pronounced for Hispanic residents living below the FPL. Compared to the region, access is better across all groups and there are smaller disparities between groups.
• In Aliso Viejo, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups and there is little disparity between race/ethnic groups. • In Anaheim, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is relatively low for all groups in the city and there are significant racial/ethnic disparities. Hispanic residents have the least access, followed by Native American and Black residents.

Access also tends to be worse for residents living below the FPL, with Hispanic residents living below the FPL having the least access to neighborhoods with highperforming schools. • In Buena Park, Hispanic and Black residents have less access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools than other groups, and this disparity is even greater for Hispanic residents living below the FPL. Residents in the city have better access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools than their counterparts regionwide, and there are fewer disparities in access by race/ethnicity when compared to the region.
• In Costa Mesa, Hispanic residents have less access to neighborhoods with highperforming schools than other groups, and this disparity is even greater for Hispanic 242
Orange County 67 25-29 Regional AFH
residents living below the FPL. Generally, residents in the city have better access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools than their counterparts regionwide, and there are fewer disparities in access by race/ethnicity when compared to the region.
• In Fountain Valley, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups, with little disparity between race/ethnic groups, except for Native Americans living below the FPL, who have relatively poor access. • In Fullerton, access to neighborhoods with high performing schools is comparable to the region, with relatively low access and evidence of racial/ethnic disparities.

Hispanic residents have the least access, followed by Native American and Black residents.
• In Garden Grove, Hispanic residents have less access than other groups to neighborhoods with high-performing schools, though these disparities are less pronounced than in the region as a whole.
• In Huntington Beach, Hispanic and Black residents have less access than other groups to neighborhoods with high-performing schools, and these disparities are more pronounced for residents living below the FPL.
• In Irvine, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups.
• In La Habra, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is relatively low for all groups and there is little disparity between race/ethnic groups. • In Laguna Niguel, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups.
• In Lake Forest, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is moderately high for all groups, though residents living below the federal FPL have less access to these types of neighborhoods. Hispanic residents living below the federal FPL, in particular, have the least access compared to other groups. • In Mission Viejo, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is moderately high for all groups and there is little disparity between groups. • In Newport Beach, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups.
• In Orange, there are some disparities in access to neighborhoods with highperforming schools, with Black and Hispanic residents having less access than other groups. These disparities are less pronounced than in the region overall—this is because, Hispanic, Black, and Native American residents of Orange have better access to these kinds of neighborhoods than their counterparts in the region overall, while White and AAPI residents of Orange have less access. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups.
243
Orange County 68 25-29 Regional AFH
• In San Clemente, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is moderately high for all groups with few disparities between groups. • In Santa Ana, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is relatively low for all groups and there are significant disparities between race/ethnic groups.

Hispanic and Native American residents have the least access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools.
• In Tustin, Hispanic and Native American residents living below the FPL have significantly less access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools than other groups.
• In Westminster, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is moderately high for all groups and there is little disparity between groups. 244
Orange County 69 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 65.19 68.03 67.43 77.63 73.13 54.59 21.35 Black, Non-Hispanic 36.07 33.82 35.34 87.25 79.02 40.72 11.92 Hispanic 35.53 39.72 35.73 86.48 77.78 43.70 12.36
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 55.03 61.94 57.64 85.13 75.98 51.11 13.13 Native American, Non-Hispanic 48.40 50.70 48.58 81.04 75.36 45.88 17.68 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 53.66 60.62 59.62 83.19 78.51 56.98 18.46 Black, Non-Hispanic 24.12 28.03 26.41 88.34 81.07 36.90 11.74 Hispanic 25.05 33.70 29.50 89.09 80.94 44.63 10.63
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 45.45 57.59 51.41 88.58 80.61 52.88 11.05 Native American, Non-Hispanic 33.63 39.10 36.05 84.43 78.22 47.65 16.22 Orange County Urban County, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.48 81.89 74.59 60.92 67.05 46.96 24.39 Black, Non-Hispanic 69.50 75.53 68.16 74.64 71.50 44.07 15.23 Hispanic 58.20 67.52 59.65 75.35 73.08 45.50 15.65
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 69.64 76.68 67.46 77.05 70.10 43.85 13.93 Native American, Non-Hispanic 68.87 73.43 68.92 69.65 69.78 46.01 19.49 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 68.31 77.99 69.03 62.05 71.85 49.98 24.26 Black, Non-Hispanic 57.08 70.54 60.65 74.14 71.46 42.77 13.74 Hispanic 40.26 56.48 46.97 79.38 77.74 45.63 12.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.82 72.84 58.95 82.14 75.35 40.98 10.57 Native American, Non-Hispanic 59.71 78.50 58.72 80.71 75.06 48.72 12.85 Aliso Viejo, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 86.40 83.80 89.60 25.37 76.58 67.81 44.39 Black, Non-Hispanic 85.66 83.41 89.02 26.10 79.11 67.21 44.13 Hispanic 84.11 84.55 88.33 26.59 79.32 68.55 43.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 87.35 84.31 89.76 24.91 75.76 67.91 44.68 Native American, Non-Hispanic 86.17 83.12 88.93 26.36 79.02 67.87 44.33 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 82.37 81.49 87.38 28.15 80.65 67.31 43.92 Black, Non-Hispanic 96.00 90.96 92.00 20.00 71.00 68.85 44.00 Hispanic 87.11 86.95 88.83 25.18 80.76 67.92 44.61
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 79.67 82.36 87.60 28.86 79.35 68.30 43.19 Native American, Non-Hispanic 89.00 73.76 91.00 20.00 71.00 64.40 46.00 Anaheim, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 57.74 51.16 55.99 86.30 72.67 43.78 11.42 Black, Non-Hispanic 42.85 39.66 45.37 89.16 78.00 36.96 8.52 Hispanic 36.00 27.30 39.83 90.59 79.51 50.51 7.89
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 49.75 44.50 50.68 87.98 75.45 37.02 9.49 Native American, Non-Hispanic 44.95 36.79 46.32 89.37 77.46 48.18 8.95 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 45.90 40.49 46.79 89.04 77.96 42.96 9.09 Black, Non-Hispanic 31.74 34.14 37.42 89.65 79.84 31.61 7.85 Hispanic 29.41 22.31 35.78 91.71 81.27 52.65 7.32
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 45.63 44.33 47.94 88.35 76.64 30.85 9.12 Native American, Non-Hispanic 28.04 34.19 30.87 92.22 79.80 57.77 8.38 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation). 245
Orange County 70 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued) Buena Park, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 60.45 68.12 55.62 88.37 74.04 32.63 5.85 Black, Non-Hispanic 46.36 56.49 50.18 88.38 76.06 36.64 5.75 Hispanic 45.66 56.38 48.40 87.86 75.87 38.65 5.61
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 55.66 65.85 56.16 88.51 74.65 34.48 5.98 Native American, Non-Hispanic 54.49 66.44 52.73 88.12 74.89 31.49 5.74 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 53.80 63.19 53.10 88.01 75.46 34.13 5.82 Black, Non-Hispanic 34.70 61.54 49.56 89.06 79.09 51.37 6.30 Hispanic 36.05 49.35 44.29 87.95 77.28 40.67 5.51
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 52.60 62.69 52.02 88.88 76.16 33.32 5.99 Native American, Non-Hispanic 66.17 70.34 82.13 88.84 71.20 32.56 6.92 Costa Mesa, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 60.10 72.71 73.56 89.69 81.33 83.04 28.03 Black, Non-Hispanic 55.04 70.24 69.80 90.47 83.27 83.47 25.72 Hispanic 40.06 60.53 56.72 90.42 83.05 78.57 30.24
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.51 71.28 73.20 90.57 82.88 87.44 22.65 Native American, Non-Hispanic 53.54 70.81 68.03 90.49 82.74 81.69 28.26 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 53.85 69.80 68.91 90.07 82.43 80.51 28.58 Black, Non-Hispanic 61.70 78.78 82.00 91.46 84.89 87.37 19.50 Hispanic 33.36 56.69 51.57 90.56 83.60 78.70 31.40
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 55.36 71.81 73.29 90.38 83.08 84.52 24.46 Native American, Non-Hispanic 50.53 67.96 56.06 91.85 77.66 85.70 19.03 Fountain Valley, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 72.99 77.95 66.97 88.74 72.84 63.54 10.36 Black, Non-Hispanic 63.35 74.50 64.34 89.00 77.04 67.34 9.23 Hispanic 61.51 73.48 61.11 89.32 76.51 64.27 9.44
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 68.19 74.62 62.14 88.86 73.78 61.25 9.43 Native American, Non-Hispanic 71.09 77.77 66.67 88.24 73.04 61.75 9.83 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 73.72 79.47 71.04 88.66 70.86 60.63 12.98 Black, Non-Hispanic 59.12 85.62 60.95 89.98 80.00 64.77 7.03 Hispanic 62.05 75.52 64.05 88.78 73.78 52.61 10.82
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 64.02 71.44 61.18 88.82 76.72 64.70 8.84 Native American, Non-Hispanic 25.00 58.70 39.00 91.00 79.00 33.65 9.00 Fullerton, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 62.61 56.65 61.50 87.07 76.65 55.54 8.66 Black, Non-Hispanic 49.62 47.75 52.52 88.60 79.69 50.90 7.95 Hispanic 42.72 39.02 45.92 88.92 79.56 48.09 7.72
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.92 66.82 67.55 86.58 74.57 45.70 8.74 Native American, Non-Hispanic 52.94 46.15 50.35 88.41 78.82 50.79 7.98 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 55.56 50.27 55.74 89.34 80.78 56.42 8.27 Black, Non-Hispanic 36.98 38.56 45.43 90.92 83.87 43.50 7.52 Hispanic 37.93 36.39 41.66 89.84 80.77 46.43 7.60
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.46 64.03 66.38 88.24 78.20 51.50 8.57 Native American, Non-Hispanic 66.11 42.19 54.89 87.14 77.59 36.66 7.59 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation). 246
Orange County 71 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued) Garden Grove, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 51.61 62.62 46.45 89.02 75.00 36.85 5.30 Black, Non-Hispanic 41.29 55.63 41.33 89.90 78.05 34.48 5.93 Hispanic 38.31 49.57 38.53 90.25 78.44 36.49 6.55
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 36.53 57.58 38.40 89.26 78.09 26.41 6.31 Native American, Non-Hispanic 42.49 57.15 40.82 89.84 77.88 33.27 6.01 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 43.98 59.78 40.82 89.70 77.12 33.92 5.82 Black, Non-Hispanic 31.36 52.83 42.46 88.39 77.73 22.40 6.08 Hispanic 33.96 47.89 37.29 90.91 80.88 38.03 6.46
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 34.39 57.31 37.26 89.10 78.63 24.49 6.43 Native American, Non-Hispanic 25.46 59.54 38.35 90.71 82.88 20.33 5.55 Huntington Beach, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 73.22 76.09 73.40 86.19 75.11 39.88 27.16 Black, Non-Hispanic 66.28 64.48 68.38 86.93 77.62 44.20 22.24 Hispanic 56.39 62.72 61.50 86.96 78.62 46.28 19.14
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 70.78 72.77 69.79 85.78 74.36 43.09 23.36 Native American, Non-Hispanic 69.29 73.74 70.28 86.49 76.42 41.44 25.86 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 70.07 73.38 72.99 86.92 77.44 38.84 27.86 Black, Non-Hispanic 46.90 56.51 58.56 88.62 80.11 43.69 17.85 Hispanic 42.73 56.09 51.58 87.45 81.23 47.75 14.39
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.40 65.76 67.00 86.92 78.76 42.40 23.92 Native American, Non-Hispanic 72.02 78.94 63.69 86.00 64.39 36.61 26.65 Irvine, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 75.51 91.83 85.86 86.03 75.70 82.98 24.62 Black, Non-Hispanic 71.46 90.47 85.50 87.62 77.90 85.02 24.34 Hispanic 71.82 91.30 84.30 87.17 77.18 84.06 24.32
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 74.27 91.74 86.27 86.36 76.01 81.99 24.03 Native American, Non-Hispanic 73.19 91.00 86.39 86.51 77.19 85.15 24.45 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 74.06 91.44 81.96 88.76 79.32 87.44 26.01 Black, Non-Hispanic 70.68 91.56 89.17 86.53 76.94 79.65 24.23 Hispanic 72.33 89.99 77.69 89.76 80.78 89.91 26.12
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 75.04 93.12 76.85 88.34 80.05 88.66 27.79 Native American, Non-Hispanic 75.05 92.63 64.82 92.82 83.98 89.60 26.21 La Habra, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 54.95 45.37 49.14 85.13 74.94 24.60 9.57 Black, Non-Hispanic 51.87 41.91 49.43 85.67 76.39 21.77 9.50 Hispanic 49.15 38.57 41.33 85.10 76.65 25.54 9.56
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 63.20 44.08 62.32 84.33 71.22 22.13 9.44 Native American, Non-Hispanic 51.76 43.96 45.26 84.53 75.07 26.27 9.56 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 56.10 47.10 49.00 84.46 74.26 24.56 9.48 Black, Non-Hispanic 52.83 41.39 42.26 87.37 77.76 28.47 9.43 Hispanic 46.12 36.01 37.54 85.25 76.92 28.33 9.70
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 52.15 40.10 53.86 86.17 73.95 25.19 9.48 Native American, Non-Hispanic 53.40 39.69 33.09 88.64 77.34 23.54 9.00 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation). 247
Orange County 72 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued) Laguna Niguel, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.15 78.68 81.92 20.01 65.30 24.83 44.29 Black, Non-Hispanic 75.53 78.56 81.05 20.78 66.76 27.40 43.54 Hispanic 74.16 77.79 80.90 21.60 68.64 26.05 42.93
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 76.21 79.74 81.58 21.17 67.10 30.29 43.17 Native American, Non-Hispanic 73.38 78.54 81.49 20.46 66.97 23.45 45.40 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 76.39 77.56 79.65 20.30 66.57 26.91 43.73 Black, Non-Hispanic 71.95 74.35 89.13 22.25 72.54 11.92 43.47 Hispanic 75.89 78.28 79.36 21.25 67.62 30.40 44.20
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 75.56 80.73 75.10 23.52 71.49 42.28 41.54 Native American, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Lake Forest, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.36 72.36 81.64 32.24 69.42 71.33 42.33 Black, Non-Hispanic 73.27 69.65 81.67 32.34 70.96 72.67 42.25 Hispanic 67.04 66.07 76.36 31.35 73.18 70.57 39.94
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 73.63 72.58 82.39 32.16 69.56 73.34 42.56 Native American, Non-Hispanic 75.43 68.97 79.14 32.03 71.55 69.17 41.59 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 70.42 68.73 79.06 32.70 72.03 71.31 41.04 Black, Non-Hispanic 80.40 60.52 86.90 25.18 69.16 38.16 45.46 Hispanic 63.26 57.73 67.26 26.85 71.64 76.10 35.45
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.70 65.12 73.73 35.90 75.46 69.11 39.66 Native American, Non-Hispanic 27.00 62.47 60.00 31.00 85.00 71.40 34.00 Mission Viejo, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 81.64 76.96 76.49 20.23 60.25 21.34 46.11 Black, Non-Hispanic 79.61 72.77 76.94 20.85 64.05 27.65 45.55 Hispanic 77.56 73.46 73.81 20.70 64.44 27.95 44.61
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 80.69 77.17 77.29 20.55 60.53 22.69 45.63 Native American, Non-Hispanic 79.23 74.24 74.50 21.07 62.03 22.20 46.25 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 80.70 78.05 76.43 20.42 61.66 22.41 46.10 Black, Non-Hispanic 70.69 76.42 81.54 21.23 69.77 27.61 43.31 Hispanic 73.93 74.29 66.28 20.00 66.08 35.01 41.77
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 74.62 76.39 81.02 20.31 65.65 30.45 42.20 Native American, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Newport Beach, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 81.31 90.17 82.88 86.59 75.16 90.40 41.36 Black, Non-Hispanic 78.86 89.72 81.85 86.92 76.61 90.54 40.65 Hispanic 79.04 88.93 81.76 86.93 76.81 89.82 40.55
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 84.48 91.60 85.94 83.05 68.64 89.19 38.80 Native American, Non-Hispanic 79.22 88.29 81.86 88.35 78.06 91.17 40.73 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 78.99 89.20 83.30 87.76 78.81 90.38 43.27 Black, Non-Hispanic 78.71 86.38 78.21 89.58 85.43 87.99 48.46 Hispanic 82.46 87.75 81.41 88.28 77.88 89.87 41.76
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 84.34 88.97 82.79 88.43 76.05 92.09 39.15 Native American, Non-Hispanic 77.00 89.17 88.00 93.00 85.00 95.55 40.00 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation). 248
Orange County 73 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued) Orange, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 59.85 60.76 61.19 87.39 72.03 69.31 10.04 Black, Non-Hispanic 52.12 48.57 51.47 89.40 77.99 78.41 8.77 Hispanic 48.30 50.65 52.77 88.89 76.83 76.42 9.01
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.06 58.78 59.94 87.51 72.50 67.82 9.94 Native American, Non-Hispanic 54.37 55.48 56.10 88.33 74.75 73.95 9.39 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 57.04 52.92 58.45 89.18 76.75 78.49 9.16 Black, Non-Hispanic 32.85 42.16 41.19 83.58 78.05 89.55 9.52 Hispanic 45.47 53.35 53.02 89.09 76.93 73.57 9.08
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 52.82 43.86 48.07 89.57 79.90 81.30 8.42 Native American, Non-Hispanic 64.21 51.31 53.78 90.52 79.37 86.78 8.55 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 87.82 84.08 87.29 19.01 61.49 12.75 54.08 Black, Non-Hispanic 85.22 82.80 86.30 20.39 66.64 13.57 53.73 Hispanic 84.08 80.19 85.16 21.29 69.41 11.83 54.01
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 86.50 84.59 87.52 19.55 63.25 12.85 53.44 Native American, Non-Hispanic 86.05 82.04 86.50 20.09 66.32 11.54 53.88 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 83.99 77.97 85.14 20.86 67.77 9.82 54.55 Black, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a
Hispanic 79.71 72.25 79.75 22.39 74.90 7.51 54.71
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 92.08 91.03 89.00 16.53 50.91 17.71 53.51 Native American, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a San Clemente, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.02 73.91 77.79 15.18 58.61 30.53 54.50 Black, Non-Hispanic 75.72 74.47 77.50 15.14 58.28 33.23 53.99 Hispanic 64.41 66.23 74.88 16.13 64.05 28.18 54.33
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 77.00 75.99 77.85 14.57 56.60 36.23 53.93 Native American, Non-Hispanic 70.21 72.47 77.11 16.20 60.72 31.36 54.49 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 72.53 69.89 77.05 15.87 60.90 29.70 54.94 Black, Non-Hispanic 33.81 63.97 69.04 14.71 67.68 30.34 53.00 Hispanic 64.44 65.67 75.42 15.59 64.76 30.60 54.22
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 75.99 79.46 77.89 13.66 59.13 42.42 53.36 Native American, Non-Hispanic 69.92 82.92 81.47 13.38 53.61 35.91 53.08 Santa Ana, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 43.58 40.95 48.31 92.62 80.95 74.89 10.29 Black, Non-Hispanic 37.22 34.86 40.19 92.78 81.04 67.18 10.60 Hispanic 27.34 28.45 33.05 92.92 80.41 62.17 11.06
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 37.32 41.90 37.03 92.43 79.82 52.24 10.44 Native American, Non-Hispanic 30.92 33.84 37.35 92.65 79.81 61.51 10.65 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 36.59 35.69 45.31 92.55 81.75 72.63 10.59 Black, Non-Hispanic 30.40 34.66 39.64 91.94 82.25 76.57 10.44 Hispanic 22.21 27.00 30.56 93.36 82.18 60.87 10.98
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 36.22 40.88 35.66 92.11 80.53 46.13 10.05 Native American, Non-Hispanic 22.28 21.56 35.82 93.35 79.06 60.67 11.72 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation). 249
Orange County 74 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued) By comparing the School Proficiency Index in Table 6 to the demographic data in Table 1 (Demographics), a pattern emerges showing that cities where all residents have access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools, have a lower percentage of Hispanic residents than the County overall. In other words, Hispanic residents are concentrated in cities with fewer high-performing schools. Specifically, in the following cities, the School Proficiency Index is 70 or higher for every racial/ethnic group, and the percentage of the population that is Hispanic is lower than the countywide percentage of 33.93%:
• Aliso Viejo, where the School Proficiency Index is over 83 for all groups, and 20.02% of the population is Hispanic.
• Fountain Valley, where the School Proficiency Index is over 73 for all groups, and

17.08% of the population is Hispanic.
• Irvine, where the School Proficiency Index is over 90 for all groups, and 11.24% of the population is Hispanic.
• Laguna Niguel, where the School Proficiency Index is over 77 for all groups, and

16.10% of the population is Hispanic.
• Mission Viejo, where the School Proficiency Index is over 72 for all groups, and

19.67% of the population is Hispanic.

Tustin, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 63.67 71.61 73.97 89.66 78.12 75.92 12.00 Black, Non-Hispanic 49.37 60.11 64.18 92.75 83.81 83.31 10.82 Hispanic 44.93 51.70 59.55 93.52 85.08 86.73 9.74
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 54.59 67.08 73.12 90.92 80.48 78.28 12.30 Native American, Non-Hispanic 58.55 62.31 69.02 91.12 81.54 81.61 10.47 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 50.82 67.17 68.54 92.03 82.78 82.13 11.15 Black, Non-Hispanic 53.03 52.08 60.97 93.61 85.87 88.59 9.55 Hispanic 33.68 38.03 51.91 95.23 88.33 88.99 8.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 51.22 62.44 67.76 91.95 82.30 84.23 11.07 Native American, Non-Hispanic 21.99 34.26 62.35 95.29 87.57 92.46 8.78 Westminster, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 49.67 72.09 47.64 86.39 76.49 42.87 6.57 Black, Non-Hispanic 40.88 69.65 44.06 86.96 78.34 40.93 6.86 Hispanic 35.08 63.82 39.25 87.10 78.73 37.10 6.50
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 35.42 65.32 39.47 87.81 79.49 29.74 7.51 Native American, Non-Hispanic 43.72 69.82 44.55 87.26 77.82 41.17 6.24 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 42.88 69.22 42.57 86.90 77.90 37.35 6.79 Black, Non-Hispanic 32.08 67.37 41.25 85.75 77.20 41.57 7.92 Hispanic 32.07 60.97 36.24 86.89 78.84 40.17 5.44
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 31.20 62.98 38.17 87.91 80.04 31.20 7.13 Native American, Non-Hispanic 37.94 63.01 34.15 89.90 81.79 23.92 8.00 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation). 250
Orange County 75 25-29 Regional AFH
• Newport Beach, where the School Proficiency Index is over 88 for all groups, and

10.47% of the population is Hispanic.
• Rancho Santa Margarita, where the School Proficiency Index is over 80 for all groups, and 20.41% of the population is Hispanic.

Map 7 – Education Score, is a series of maps showing the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map’s Education Composite Score for north, central, and south Orange County, and the region.

These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map data8F
9 . The Education Composite Score for a particular Census Tract is based on four indicators, all of which are based on enrollment-weighted averages of the three schools closest to the tract’s center point 9F 10:
• Math and Reading Proficiency, where “Proficiency” is the percentage of students performing at grade-level in the 4th grade.
• High School Graduation Rate, which is calculated using California Department of Education data on the percent of students who graduate in four years. • Student Poverty, which is measured as the percentage of students that do not receive free and reduced-price lunch.

A tract’s composite score is determined by whether it falls above or below the median (50th percentile) tract or block group value within each region. Each indicator that falls above the regional median adds one point to the final score. On the maps, the categories equal the following scores:
• Highest: >3-4
• High: >2-3
• Moderate: >1-2
• Low: 0-1
These maps, along with Map 3 showing the predominant race/ethnicity in each area, show the following relationship between residency patterns and proximity to proficient schools by race/ethnicity:
• In the County overall,
o Cities in the central County have the lowest education scores, indicating that residents in these areas are less likely to live near high quality schools. Areas in the southern County, along the coast, and in the unincorporated areas in the north and east parts of the County, have the highest education scores. 9 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 10 Detailed descriptions of the methodology used to measure each indicator can be found on the CTAC website, https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp
251
Orange County 76 25-29 Regional AFH
Low education score areas generally correspond to areas where the population is predominantly Hispanic.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o Brea and Los Alamitos have high education scores and are predominantly White in most but not all areas.
o Cypress has high education scores and a predominantly AAPI and White population.
o La Palma has high education scores and a predominantly AAPI population o Yorba Linda, Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, North Tustin, unincorporated areas of the County, Laguna Woods, Laguna Beach, and Laguna Hills, all have the highest education scores and are predominantly White.
o Dana Point has a mix of education scores, all areas are predominantly White. o Placentia has low education scores in the southeast, which align with the predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods.
o San Juan Capistrano has low education score areas that are a mix of predominantly Hispanic and predominantly White neighborhoods. • In Aliso Viejo, all neighborhoods in the city have the highest education score and are predominantly White.
• In Anaheim, most of the city’s neighborhoods have low education scores and are predominantly Hispanic. The exception is Anaheim Hills, which is both predominantly White, and has the highest education scores. • In Buena Park, there are neighborhoods with low education scores in the city’s center and southeast, which are also areas of predominant Hispanic population. • In Costa Mesa, the southwest quarter of the city has low education scores. This area is a mix of predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods in and around downtown, and predominantly White neighborhoods to the west.
• In Fountain Valley, almost all of the city’s neighborhoods have high education scores.

These neighborhoods are a mix of predominantly White and AAPI. • In Fullerton, neighborhoods in the south of the city have low education scores and are also the areas with the highest concentrations of Hispanic residents. • In Garden Grove, the neighborhoods with low education score areas in the east are predominantly Hispanic, and the neighborhoods with low education scores in the northwest are predominantly Hispanic and AAPI.
• In Huntington Beach, the neighborhoods with the highest education scores correlate to areas that are predominantly White, which is most of the city. One area of the city with low education scores has a predominantly Hispanic population. • In Irvine, neighborhoods across the city have the highest education score. These neighborhoods are a mix of predominantly White and AAPI. 252
Orange County 77 25-29 Regional AFH
• In La Habra, neighborhoods with low education scores are located in the center and eastern part of the city, which are also the areas with the highest concentrations of Hispanic residents.
• In Laguna Niguel, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are predominantly White.
• In Lake Forest, all neighborhoods have high education scores and most are predominantly White, except in the southeastern corner of the city, along El Toro Road, which is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Mission Viejo, all neighborhoods have high education scores, and most are predominantly White except in the southern part of the city. • In Newport Beach, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are predominantly White.
• In Orange, neighborhoods in the western half of the city have low education scores and are predominantly Hispanic. The neighborhoods with the highest education scores are in the eastern half of the city. The high education score areas north and west of Villa Park are predominantly White, and the high education score areas south and west of Villa Park are predominantly Hispanic.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are predominantly White.
• In San Clemente, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are predominantly White.
• In Santa Ana, neighborhoods with low education score areas comprise most of the city, and are areas where population is predominantly Hispanic. • In Tustin, the neighborhoods with low education scores are predominantly Hispanic and White, and the neighborhoods with the highest education scores are predominantly AAPI.
• In Westminster, there is a mix of moderate, high, and highest education score areas.

There is one part of the city with low education scores, in the north. This area is predominantly Hispanic.
253
Orange County 78 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 7 – Education Score – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Map 7 – Education Score – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
254
Orange County 79 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 7 – Education Score – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Map 7 – Education Score – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
255
Orange County 80 25-29 Regional AFH

2. Employment
Table 6 includes a Jobs Proximity Index, which measures the physical distance between where residents of different races/ethnicities live and the location of jobs. A higher index value indicates better access to employment opportunities. Table 6 also includes a Labor Market Index, which measures the unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, and percentage of the population aged 25 and above with at least a bachelor’s degree, by neighborhood. A higher index value indicates that residents live in a neighborhood with higher labor force participation and human capital.

Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to neighborhoods close to jobs and with high labor force participation and human capital in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, there are significant disparities in both the Jobs Proximity and the Labor Market Index. The Jobs Proximity Index is the lowest for Black residents, especially those living below FPL. It is also low for Hispanic residents. White residents are most likely to live in neighborhoods close to jobs.The Labor Market Index is lowest for Black and Hispanic residents, especially those living below FPL, and highest for White residents. Generally, the Labor Market Index is lower for individuals living below FPL.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there is relatively low access to neighborhoods close to jobs for all races/ethnicities, with no large disparities between groups. Compared to the region, residents of all races/ethnicities have better access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. However, there are disparities between racial/ethnic groups, with Hispanic residents having significantly less access than other groups, and White residents having more access.
• In Aliso Viejo, access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all races/ethnicities, with no large disparities between groups. This is also true for access to neighborhoods close to jobs. On both indices, the city performs significantly better than the region overall. • In Anaheim, there are significant disparities in access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and with high labor force participation and human capital. Hispanic residents have the least access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Black and AAPI residents have the least access to neighborhoods close to jobs. On both indices, the city is comparable to the region overall, with lowto-moderate scores and significant disparities between groups. • In Buena Park, there is relatively low access to neighborhoods close to jobs for all races/ethnicities, with no large disparities between groups. Compared to the region, residents of all races/ethnicities have less access to neighborhoods close to jobs.

There is moderate access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and 256
Orange County 81 25-29 Regional AFH
human capital, with slight disparities between races/ethnicities—Hispanic residents have the least access to these neighborhoods. Compared to the region, access is higher for Hispanic and Black residents in the city.
• In Costa Mesa, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is high for all races/ethnicities, with only slight disparities—Hispanic residents have the least access. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is also high for all races/ethnicities, but with significant disparities between races/ethnicities—again Hispanic residents have the least access. On both indices, the city performs better than the region overall for all racial/ethnic groups.
• In Fountain Valley, access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and with high labor force participation and human capital, is relatively high for all groups except for Native American residents living below the FPL, who have very low index values for each measure.
• In Fullerton, all race/ethnicities have moderate access to neighborhoods close to jobs, with slight disparities between groups—AAPI residents have the least access of any group. Regarding access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital, there are some disparities between groups (with Hispanic residents having the least access), and index values for Hispanic, Black, and AAPI residents are higher than their counterparts regionwide. • In Garden Grove, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is low for all groups, with some disparities between groups—AAPI residents have the least access. Compared to the region, all groups in Garden Grove have less access. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is also relatively low for all groups in the city, with slight disparities between races/ethnicities. Access is lowest for Hispanic and AAPI residents. Compared to the region, the Labor Market Index in the city is higher for Black and Hispanic residents, and lower for all others. • In Huntington Beach, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is relatively low for all groups, with few disparities between races/ethnicities. Overall, groups in the city have better access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital; however, there are large disparities between groups. Hispanic residents, and especially those living below the FPL, have the least access to these neighborhoods. • In Irvine, access to neighborhoods close to jobs and with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups (and higher than the region).

The only significant disparities are for Black residents living below FPL, who have less access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and Native American residents living below FPL, who have less access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital.
• In La Habra, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is very low for all groups, with no disparities between groups. There are disparities, however, in access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Hispanic 257
Orange County 82 25-29 Regional AFH
residents and Native American residents living below FPL have the least access of all groups. Compared to region, Hispanic, Black and AAPI residents in the city have more access, while White residents have less access.
• In Laguna Niguel, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is lower than the region for all groups, with little disparity between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups, with little disparity between groups.
• In Lake Forest, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is relatively high, and higher than region, for all groups. There is very little disparity between groups, except for Black residents below FPL, who have very low access to neighborhoods close to jobs. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is higher than in the region for all groups, with little disparity except for Hispanic, AAPI, and Native American residents living below FPL, all of whom have significantly less access.
• In Mission Viejo, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is low for all groups, with no disparities between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups, with little disparity except for Hispanics living below FPL, for whom access is relatively low compared to other city residents but is still higher than in the region.
• In Newport Beach, access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital, is high for all groups, with very little disparity between groups.
• In Orange, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is higher than the region, but there are some disparities—access is lowest for AAPI and White residents. There are also disparities in access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Black and Hispanic residents overall, and Black and AAPI residents living below FPL have the least access. However, access is higher for all groups (except White residents), in comparison to the region.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is very low for all groups, with no disparities between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups, with some disparities—Hispanic residents living below FPL have the least access. • In San Clemente, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is low for all groups, with very little disparity between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups (and higher than in the region), with some disparity—namely, Hispanic residents living below FPL have less access. • In Santa Ana, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is higher for all groups than in region, with some disparities—access is lowest for AAPI residents, especially those living below FPL. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is lower than in the region for all groups except Black residents, and 258
Orange County 83 25-29 Regional AFH
there are significant disparities in access—Hispanic residents have the least access, and access is also lower for individuals living below FPL in each racial/ethnic group. • In Tustin, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is higher for all groups than in region, with some disparities between races/ethnicities—White residents have the least access. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is higher than in the region, with some disparities—Hispanic residents have the least access, and access is also lower for individuals living below FPL in each racial/ethnic group.
• In Westminster, there are disparities in access to neighborhoods close to jobs by race/ethnicity. Native American residents living below FPL, and AAPI residents, have the least access. There are some disparities in access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital by race/ethnicity—Native American residents living below FPL and Hispanic and AAPI residents overall, have less access.

Compared to the region, access in the city is slightly better for Black and Hispanic residents, worse for all other groups.

The following analysis describes how a person’s place of residence affects their ability to obtain a job.

Map 8 – Economic Score, is a series of maps showing the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map’s Economic Composite Score for north, central, and south Orange County, and the region.

These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map data10F
11 . The Economic Composite Score for a particular Census Tract is based on four indicators11F
12:
• Poverty Rate – Measured as the percentage of the Tract residents who live above 200 percent of the FPL (the 200 percent threshold is used to account for the higher cost of living in California compared to other regions of the United States). • Adult Education Rate – Measured as the percentage of adults aged 25 years and older in each Tract, who have earned at least a bachelor’s degree. • Employment Rate- Measured as the percentage of individuals in each Tract ages 20 to 64 who are employed in either the civilian labor force or the armed forces. • Home Value – Measured as the median home value (dollars) of owner-occupied housing units in each tract.
11 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 12 Detailed descriptions of the methodology used to measure each indicator can be found on the CTAC website, https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp
259
Orange County 84 25-29 Regional AFH
The composite score for each Tract is determined by whether it falls above or below the median (50th percentile) tract or block group value within each region. On the map, a higher numerical score indicates more positive economic outcomes.

These maps show the following relationship between residency patterns and economic outcomes, including employment:
• Countywide, there is a similar pattern to the education scores, with cities in the central County tending to have lower economic scores than cities and unincorporated areas along the coast and in the southern, northern, and eastern parts of the County. Low score areas generally correspond to areas where the population is predominantly Hispanic of AAPI, whereas the high score areas correspond to predominantly White areas.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o There are generally good economic outcomes in Cypress, Yorba Linda, North Tustin, La Palma, Los Alamitos, unincorporated areas east of Yorba Linda, Brea, North Tustin, Orange Park Acres, Villa Park, Seal Beach (except for the Tract where Leisure World, a retirement community, is located), Rossmoor, Laguna Beach, Dana Point, Ladera Ranch, and Capistrano Beach. o There is a mix of economic outcomes in the following places:
▪ Placentia, where there are lower economic scores in the southwest corner of the city, which is predominantly Hispanic.
▪ Laguna Woods and North Laguna Hills, which are predominantly White and have lower economic scores.
▪ San Juan Capistrano, where there are lower economic scores in the Census Tract that encompasses the interchange between I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74), which is also a high POC segregation area and predominantly Hispanic.
• In Aliso Viejo, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are mostly areas of high White concentration. • In Anaheim, neighborhoods with lower economic scores include neighborhoods considered to be areas of high POC segregation, including those north of downtown and along SR-91, and south of downtown and adjacent to Disneyland. These areas are predominantly Hispanic. Conversely, Anaheim Hills has high economic scores and is predominantly White.
• In Buena Park, the neighborhoods between I-5 and SR-91 have the lowest economic scores in the city. These areas are predominantly Hispanic. The northeastern corner of the city, which is predominantly AAPI, has the highest economic scores in the city. • In Costa Mesa, the neighborhoods in and surrounding downtown, on the west side of Newport Boulevard have the lowest economic scores. These are also areas that are predominantly Hispanic.
260
Orange County 85 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fountain Valley, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores. • In Fullerton, there is a general north/south divide between areas with higher and lower economic scores. The southeastern neighborhoods, which are predominantly Hispanic, have the lowest economic scores, while the northern half of the city, predominantly White and AAPI neighborhoods, have the highest economic scores. • In Garden Grove, economic scores are moderate north of Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22) and are higher in West Garden Grove. Economic scores are generally lower south of SR-22.
• In Huntington Beach, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores. • In Irvine, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores except in the area surrounding UC Irvine, and in the neighborhoods east of the intersections of SR-133 and I-5—these are predominantly AAPI.
• In La Habra, the areas with the lowest economic scores are the same areas with high POC segregation, including the neighborhoods in the center of the city north of Guadalupe Park and between Idaho Street to the west and Sonora High School to the east. These neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic. • In Laguna Niguel, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are mostly areas of high White concentration. • In Lake Forest, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores except for in the southeastern corner, which is a predominantly Hispanic area. • In Mission Viejo, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are primarily areas of high White concentration. • In Newport Beach, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are all areas of high White segregation. • In Orange, neighborhoods across the city have good economic scores. The best economic scores are in the neighborhoods north and east of Villa Park, where the population is predominantly White and classified as an area of high White segregation. The neighborhoods with lower economic scores are located west of Glassel Street and north of Walnut Avenue, which is a predominantly Hispanic area. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are generally areas of high White concentration.
• In San Clemente, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are primarily areas of high White concentration. • In Santa Ana, there are neighborhoods with low economic scores in much of the central and western parts of the city, which correspond to the areas of high POC segregation and are predominantly Hispanic, except for the Riverview West community, which is predominantly AAPI. Neighborhoods with higher economic scores are in the northern and southern parts of the city, which are areas of lowmedium segregation. 261
Orange County 86 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Tustin, all neighborhoods have good economic scores except for one neighborhood south of I-5 and west of SR-55, adjacent to Santa Ana. This is also a predominantly Hispanic area and is classified as an area of high POC segregation. • In Westminster, economic scores are lowest in the central part of the city, in the neighborhoods south of Westminster Boulevard, east of Hoover Street, and north of Bolsa Avenue. These are all areas of predominantly AAPI population.

Map 8 – Economic Score – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
262
Orange County 87 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 8 – Economic Score – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
263
Orange County 88 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 8 – Economic Score – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
264
Orange County 89 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 8 – Economic Score – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes the groups that are least successful in accessing employment.

Table 7 - Labor Force Participation and Unemployment, shows 2018-2022 ACS data on labor force participation rates and unemployment rates in the region and Orange County, for the overall population and by race/ethnicity, disability status, and sex. The table shows that:
• Orange County has lower unemployment rates than the region for every group measured in the table, except for Pacific Islanders.
• Labor force participation rates are generally higher in Orange County than the region, except for White individuals (lower in the County than the region) and Asian individuals (same rate in County and region).
• Similar to the region overall, Black individuals have the highest unemployment rate in Orange County. In the County, Pacific Islanders have the second highest unemployment rate.
265
Orange County 90 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 7 – Labor Force Participation and Unemployment
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 65.00% 6.60% 65.60% 5.40% 75.30% 3.80% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 63.40% 6.30% 62.80% 5.10% 75.50% 3.50% Black 60.70% 10.40% 70.60% 7.70% 84.90% 8.90%
Hispanic 67.60% 6.60% 70.70% 5.50% 78.00% 3.00%
Asian 62.70% 5.30% 62.70% 5.10% 71.00% 3.00%
Pacific Islander 66.40% 7.00% 68.70% 7.30% 100.00% 0.00% Native American 66.20% 7.90% 70.60% 5.20% 100.00% 0.00% Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 84.10% 6.10% 85.90% 4.70% 91.10% 2.90%
Female 72.80% 6.50% 73.50% 5.40% 79.00% 4.10%
Disability Status
With any disability 46.80% 13.30% 51.00% 10.80% 68.50% 2.90% Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 67.40% 5.40% 69.00% 5.40% 73.20% 5.00% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 62.70% 5.00% 61.40% 6.40% 71.20% 5.00% Black 72.30% 9.30% 77.70% 3.30% 91.60% 5.90%
Hispanic 70.80% 5.40% 72.40% 5.00% 76.50% 5.80%
Asian 64.20% 4.70% 70.90% 5.00% 64.10% 2.60%
Pacific Islander 66.80% 2.50% 63.30% 33.50% 92.80% 2.80% Native American 73.70% 4.10% 67.80% 18.30% 72.90% 3.70% Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 86.20% 4.70% 87.00% 5.60% 89.50% 4.00%
Female 73.90% 5.50% 77.00% 4.90% 78.50% 5.00%
Disability Status
With any disability 47.50% 13.40% 50.10% 13.70% 57.80% 11.50% Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 61.80% 6.00% 65.40% 6.90% 64.30% 5.80% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 57.40% 6.90% 60.40% 6.60% 59.70% 6.70% Black 70.50% 27.80% 63.10% 17.80% 57.80% 0.00%
Hispanic 72.90% 3.90% 71.10% 6.60% 72.90% 4.90%
Asian 62.10% 5.10% 63.60% 6.90% 59.60% 6.40%
Pacific Islander 65.20% 20.40% 83.50% 0.00% 65.60% 13.00% Native American 66.00% 0.00% 73.20% 8.30% 78.70% 5.90%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 83.30% 7.40% 85.00% 5.50% 83.30% 5.00%
Female 75.30% 4.80% 71.80% 7.50% 74.00% 5.80%
Disability Status
With any disability 37.40% 12.10% 52.00% 10.50% 46.40% 10.70% Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 66.30% 5.40% 65.60% 5.50% 66.20% 5.50% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 63.80% 5.10% 66.90% 6.30% 63.50% 4.70% Black 80.90% 13.10% 73.10% 5.20% 63.40% 9.80%
Hispanic 75.70% 5.70% 68.10% 5.50% 74.10% 3.00%
Asian 63.40% 5.40% 63.40% 4.50% 69.40% 9.60%
Pacific Islander 77.70% 6.40% 79.30% 0.60% 93.10% 0.00% Native American 56.00% 4.00% 65.20% 4.00% 89.70% 0.00%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 85.70% 5.50% 83.10% 4.10% 86.70% 4.30%
Female 77.40% 4.60% 70.10% 6.40% 75.00% 6.80%
Disability Status
With any disability 53.80% 13.00% 54.10% 11.20% 37.80% 10.50% Note 1: Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Garden Grove, CA
Huntington Beach, CA Irvine, CA Laguna Niguel, CA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA Orange County, CA Aliso Viejo, CA Anaheim, CA Buena Park, CA Costa Mesa, CA
Fountain Valley, CA Fullerton, CA
266
Orange County 91 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 7 – Labor Force Participation and Unemployment (continued) Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 68.30% 7.20% 69.20% 5.00% 63.60% 4.40% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 63.60% 7.60% 67.20% 5.20% 60.30% 4.70% Black 76.00% 3.60% 54.70% 3.50% 71.10% 2.80%
Hispanic 71.20% 7.70% 75.20% 5.50% 71.50% 3.20%
Asian 65.30% 4.30% 67.50% 3.30% 66.20% 5.00%
Pacific Islander 100.00% 0.00% 60.70% 0.00% 89.50% 0.00% Native American 57.70% 0.00% 94.90% 0.00% 72.80% 0.00%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 88.90% 6.20% 88.90% 4.30% 88.60% 3.50%
Female 76.60% 7.50% 73.80% 5.00% 75.10% 4.60%
Disability Status
With any disability 49.80% 15.90% 57.30% 7.50% 53.90% 3.70% Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 62.40% 4.10% 66.10% 4.70% 74.30% 3.30% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 60.50% 4.70% 64.00% 4.00% 73.60% 3.00% Black 54.80% 0.00% 60.90% 5.60% 82.10% 1.60%
Hispanic 76.80% 2.70% 69.20% 5.40% 80.20% 3.80%
Asian 57.50% 0.80% 64.90% 3.10% 72.70% 3.40%
Pacific Islander 100.00% 0.00% 59.60% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% Native American 65.40% 0.00% 76.50% 0.00% 95.00% 21.60% Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 88.70% 3.80% 82.30% 4.20% 92.90% 3.50%
Female 68.60% 3.90% 75.60% 4.20% 77.10% 2.20%
Disability Status
With any disability 60.30% 10.40% 52.40% 5.10% 62.10% 5.20% Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 63.10% 5.30% 66.70% 5.50% 69.00% 5.90% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 61.90% 5.80% 59.90% 3.90% 65.90% 7.30% Black 71.50% 0.00% 70.50% 6.60% 74.00% 8.00%
Hispanic 70.70% 4.70% 68.50% 5.30% 72.50% 6.50%
Asian 52.20% 3.90% 61.70% 7.40% 67.80% 4.00%
Pacific Islander 30.90% 0.00% 42.10% 24.90% 63.50% 14.80% Native American 100.00% 0.00% 70.00% 6.40% 68.20% 0.00% Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 85.40% 4.80% 85.00% 4.90% 89.70% 4.40%
Female 71.60% 5.30% 71.60% 5.20% 75.80% 6.50%
Disability Status
With any disability 52.60% 4.40% 51.70% 9.60% 51.40% 11.20% Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 59.90% 7.50%
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 58.00% 5.80%
Black 71.40% 3.80%
Hispanic 66.60% 9.00%
Asian 57.40% 7.20%
Pacific Islander 36.30% 25.60%
Native American 47.60% 15.40%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 82.10% 7.20%
Female 71.20% 7.60%
Disability Status
With any disability 42.10% 12.90%
Note 1: Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Orange, CA Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
San Clemente, CA Santa Ana, CA Tustin, CA
Westminster, CA
La Habra, CA Lake Forest, CA Mission Viejo, CA
Newport Beach, CA
267
Orange County 92 25-29 Regional AFH

3. Transportation
This analysis describes any disparities in access to transportation related to costs and access to public transit by protected class groups.

Table 6 includes a Transit Index, which measures the likelihood that residents will utilize public transportation. Higher index values indicate better access to public transit in a neighborhood. Table 6 also includes a Low Transportation Cost Index, which measures the cost of transportation in a neighborhood. Higher index values indicate lower transportation costs. Transportation costs may be low in a neighborhood due to better access to public transportation, or to the density of housing, services, and employment, or contributing factors.

Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to transit and to neighborhoods with low transportation costs in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are relatively high for all groups, though there are significant disparities between racial/ethnic groups. Both indices are lowest for White residents and highest for Black residents and are higher across all groups for individuals living below the FPL.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, access to transit is slightly lower for all groups compared to the region but is still relatively high. There are also significant disparities, with AAPI residents having the best access, and White residents having the least access. Access is slightly higher across groups for people living below the FPL. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is lower for all groups compared to the region overall but is still relatively high. There are some disparities between groups, with Hispanic residents having the best access, and White residents having the least access. Access is slightly higher across groups for people living below the FPL, except for Hispanic residents living below the FPL who have similar access to the overall Hispanic population. • In Aliso Viejo, access to transit is low for all groups, and lowest for Black and Native American residents living below the FPL. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is relatively high for all groups, with small disparities between groups—access is lowest for Black and Native American residents living below the FPL.
• In Anaheim, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Buena Park, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Costa Mesa, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
268
Orange County 93 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fountain Valley, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups. Black residents living below the FPL have the highest access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs. • In Fullerton, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Garden Grove, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Huntington Beach, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups. Native American residents living below the FPL have relatively low access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs, compared to other groups in city and the region.
• In Irvine, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In La Habra, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Laguna Niguel, access to transit is low for all groups. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is slightly lower for residents of the city in comparison to the region.
• In Lake Forest, access to transit is low for all groups, and lowest for Black and Hispanic residents living below the FPL. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is slightly lower for residents of the city in comparison to the region.
• In Mission Viejo, access to transit is low for all groups. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is slightly lower for residents of the city in comparison to the region.
• In Newport Beach, access to transit is high for all groups. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is comparable to the region for most groups, except for AAPI residents in the city, who have less access than other groups and compared to the region.
• In Orange, access to transit is high for all groups and slightly better than access in the region. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is relatively high for all groups and is comparable to the region as a whole. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to transit is low for all groups. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is also lower in the city compared to the region, and there are significant racial/ethnic disparities. AAPI residents living below the FPL have significantly lower access than other groups. • In San Clemente, access to transit is low for all groups, and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is also lower in the city compared to the region. There are some racial/ethnic disparities in access to neighborhoods with low 269
Orange County 94 25-29 Regional AFH
transportation costs—Native American residents living below the FPL line, and AAPI residents of all income levels, have less access compared to other groups. • In Santa Ana, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Tustin, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Westminster, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.

The following analysis describes how a person’s place of residence affects their access to transportation.

Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas, is a series of maps showing the areas of north, central, and south Orange County, and the region, that have access to “high quality” public transit, defined as having scheduled frequencies of 15 minutes or less. These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using data from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 12F
13 . On the maps, the outlined areas are those within
half a mile of a transit stop that is served by public transit with scheduled frequencies of 15 minutes or less.

These maps show the following relationship between a person’s place of residence and access to transportation:
• Countywide, high quality transit areas (HQTAs) are concentrated in central County cities, and there are no HQTAs in the southern or northeast parts of the County. • In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there are HQTAs in the following places
o In Brea, there is a HQTA in the center of city, overlapping with the racially integrated Census Tract that has a predominantly Hispanic population. o In Cypress, there is a HQTA on the southern edge of the city. o In Stanton, HQTAs cover the entire city.
o In Seal Beach, there are HQTAs along Seal Beach Boulevard north of US-1. o In Rossmoor, the southeastern corner of the city is a HQTA, along Seal Beach Boulevard.
o In Los Alamitos, the northern edge of the city is part of an HQTA. o In Laguna Woods, the eastern half of the city is a HQTA, along El Toro Rd. o In Laguna Hills, the part of the city adjacent to the HQTAs in Laguna Woods and Lake Forest is a HQTA.
13 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 270
Orange County 95 25-29 Regional AFH
o The following areas have no HQTAs: Placentia, Yorba Linda, unincorporated areas east of Yorba Linda, La Palma, Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, El Modena, North Tustin, Laguna Beach, Dana Point, Capistrano Beach, San Juan Capistrano, Ladera Ranch, and North Laguna Hills
• In Aliso Viejo, there are no HQTAs
• In Anaheim, there are HQTAs in the western part of city along Beach Boulevard; in the central and southern part of city along Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue, including the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center near Angel Stadium; and in the eastern part of the city near the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink station. These areas overlap with both high POC segregation areas and racially integrated areas.
• In Buena Park, there are HQTAs in the eastern half of city, along Beach Boulevard and La Palma Avenue.
• In Costa Mesa, HQTAs cover most of the city’s area except for the high White segregation areas in the northwest (the neighborhoods north and west of the Country Club) and in East Side Costa Mesa (east of SR-55 and south of Mesa Drive), which do not have HQTAs.
• In Fountain Valley, there are no HQTAs
• In Fullerton, there are HQTAs in downtown Fullerton and up to Fullerton College, including the area around the Metrolink station.
• In Garden Grove, there are HQTAs south of SR-22, in West Garden Grove, and in the eastern part of the city. There are no HQTAs in the city’s north-central area. • In Huntington Beach, most of the city is not a HQTA.There is one HQTA around the intersection of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway (US-1). • In Irvine, there are HQTAs located near UC Irvine and John Wayne Airport, and the Irvine Medical and Science Complex. The majority of the city does not have HQTAs. • In La Habra, the western half of the city is a HQTA. In the eastern half of the city, which is a high POC segregation area and has a concentration of predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods, there are no HQTAs
• In Laguna Niguel, there are no HQTAs except in a small area in the northeast corner along Crown Valley Parkway, adjacent to Mission Viejo.
• In Lake Forest, most of the city is not a HQTA. There are two HQTAs in the city: one in Foothill Ranch, north of SR-241(around Towne Center); and the other in the city’s southeastern corner along El Toro Rd (which is a predominantly Hispanic area). • In Mission Viejo, most of the city does not have HQTAs. There are two HQTAs in the city: one in the southern part, along Crown Valley Parkway (which is a low-medium concentration area with a predominantly Hispanic population); and the other in the northern part of the city, around the intersections of Santa Margarita Parkway with Los Alisos Boulevard and Marguerite Parkway (which are low-medium concentration areas with predominantly White populations) 271
Orange County 96 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Newport Beach, there are HQTAs just south of Costa Mesa and around the Civic Center. Much of the city does not have HQTAs.
• In Orange, there are HQTAs downtown, in the neighborhoods west and northwest of downtown, and along the westside of Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) north of Katella Avenue. There are no HQTAs east of the Costa Mesa Freeway. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, there are no HQTAs
• In San Clemente, there are no HQTAs
• In Santa Ana, most of the city is covered by HQTAs, except for northeast and southeast corners.
• In Tustin, most of the city does not have HQTAs.There are two HQTAs in the following areas: one HQTA is in the racially integrated neighborhoods just to the north of I-5, in and around downtown; the other HQTA is in South Tustin, around the Metrolink train station.
• In Westminster, most of the city is considered a HQTA, with the exception of the western and southeastern areas.

Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
272
Orange County 97 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – North Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
273
Orange County 98 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – Central Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
274
Orange County 99 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – South Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

4. Access to Low Poverty Neighborhoods
The following analysis describes any disparities in exposure to poverty by protected class groups.

Table 6 includes a Low Poverty Index, which measures the level of poverty in a neighborhood. Higher index values indicate less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.

Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, there are significant disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods. Hispanic and Black residents have the least access, and White residents have the most access. Individuals living below the FPL also have less access to low-poverty neighborhoods, compared to the overall population. • In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL. However, there are significant disparities in access.

Hispanic residents have the least access. White residents have the most access.

Individuals living below the FPL also have less access to low-poverty neighborhoods, compared to the overall population.
275
Orange County 100 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Aliso Viejo, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In Anaheim, there are significant disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods.

Hispanic residents have the least access. White residents have the most access.

Individuals living below the FPL also have less access to low-poverty neighborhoods, compared to the overall population. Compared to the region, White, AAPI, and Native American residents of the city have less access to low-poverty neighborhoods; and Black residents of the city have better access. • In Buena Park, there are similar disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods as in the region, though at a smaller scale because Hispanic, Black, and Native American residents in the city have better access than their counterparts in the region. Access in the city is lowest for Hispanic and Black residents, and highest for White residents. Individuals living below the FPL have less access across all groups, except for Native American residents.
• In Costa Mesa, there are similar disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods as in the region, though at a smaller scale due to the fact that all groups, except for White residents, in the city have better access than their counterparts in the region as a whole. Access in the city is lowest for Hispanic residents and highest for AAPI residents. Individuals living below the FPL have less access across all groups, except for Black residents
• In Fountain Valley, all residents have relatively good access to low-poverty neighborhoods compared to the region. There are some disparities by race/ethnicity, with Hispanic residents, and Native American residents living below the FPL, having the least access.
• In Fullerton, all residents have relatively good access to low-poverty neighborhoods compared to the region. There are some disparities by race/ethnicity, with Hispanic residents, including those living below the FPL, and Black residents living below the FPL, having the least access.
• In Garden Grove, there are significant disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods. AAPI and Hispanic residents have the least access. White residents have the best access. The population living below the FPL has less access across all groups. Compared to the region, disparities in the city are less pronounced due to lower index values for White and AAPI residents in the city, and higher index values for all other groups in the city, as compared to values in the region. • In Huntington Beach, all residents have relatively good access to low-poverty neighborhoods compared to the region. There are some disparities by race/ethnicity, with Hispanic residents having the least access and White residents having the most access. Individuals living below the FPL have less access across all groups, except for Native American residents.
276
Orange County 101 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Irvine, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In La Habra, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, except for White residents. There are significant disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods by race/ethnicity. Hispanic residents have the least access. AAPI residents overall have the most access, however, the AAPI population living below the FPL has significantly less access compared to the overall AAPI population in the city.
• In Laguna Niguel, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In Lake Forest, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region. However, some racial/ethnic disparities exist, with Hispanic residents having the least access. For the population living below the FPL, access is much lower for Native American residents compared to any other group, access is lower for AAPI residents compared to the overall AAPI population, and access is higher for Black residents compared to the overall Black population. • In Mission Viejo, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region. However, some disparities exist for individuals living below the FPL, with Black residents living below the FPL having less access than other groups in the city (though still with better access compared to the region). • In Newport Beach, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In Orange, there are similar disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods as in the region, though at a smaller scale because all groups, except for White residents, in the city have better access than their counterparts in the region as a whole. Hispanic residents in the city have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods. Additionally, Black residents living below the FPL have significantly lower access.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, and there is little racial/ethnic disparity. For the population living below the FPL, racial/ethnic disparities are larger, mainly because the AAPI population below the FPL has the most access to low-poverty neighborhoods of any group in the city.
• In San Clemente, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region. However, some racial/ethnic disparities exist, with Hispanic residents experiencing the least access. Disparities are larger for the population 277
Orange County 102 25-29 Regional AFH
living below the FPL, with Black residents living below the FPL having the least access in the city.
• In Santa Ana, there are significant disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods. Hispanic residents have the least access overall, and White residents have the most access overall. For the population living below the FPL, access is lower across all groups. Compared to the region, all groups in the city have less access to low-poverty neighborhoods, except for Black residents, who have access comparable to the region overall.
• In Tustin, there are similar disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods as in the region, though at a smaller scale due to the fact that Hispanic, Black, and Native American residents in the city have higher access relative to the region, and White and AAPI residents have lower access relative to region. In the city, Hispanic residents have the lowest access. For the population living below the FPL, there are also significant disparities. Access to low-poverty neighborhoods is lowest for Native American and Hispanic residents living below the FPL, and access for White residents living below the FPL is significantly lower than access for the overall White population.
• In Westminster, access to low poverty neighborhoods is lower than in the region for all groups, except for Black residents, and there are significant racial/ethnic disparities. Hispanic and AAPI residents have the least access, overall. For the population living below the FPL, access is lower across all groups and is lowest for AAPI residents.

Map 10 – Poverty Status, is a series of maps showing the percent of households, by Census Tract, living below the FPL in north, central, and south Orange County, and in the region.

These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates13F 14 .

These maps show the following relationship between an individual’s place of residence and their exposure to poverty:
• Countywide, higher poverty areas are in the central County cities, whereas the areas along the coast, in the south, and in the northeast are low poverty areas. • In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there are high poverty areas (i.e., with poverty rates above 20%) in the following places:
o In Placentia, in the southwest corner of the city, which is a high POC segregation area that is predominantly Hispanic.
o In Stanton, in the neighborhoods on the south side of Katella Avenue and on the eastside of Beach Boulevard north of Katella Avenue. 14 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 278
Orange County 103 25-29 Regional AFH
o In San Juan Capistrano, there is one tract between Camino Del Avion, Del Obispo Street, and Alipaz Street, which has a poverty rate over 20% and is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Aliso Viejo, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Anaheim, the highest poverty area is located downtown north of Lincoln Avenue (in a predominantly Hispanic area). There are other areas of concentrated poverty south and west of downtown, which are also predominantly Hispanic. The areas of lowest poverty are downtown south of Lincoln Avenue, east of downtown (including the racially integrated areas), in Northeast Anaheim, and in Anaheim Hills. • In Buena Park, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Costa Mesa, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Fountain Valley, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Fullerton, there are high poverty areas in the southeast (predominantly Hispanic, low-medium segregation areas) and surrounding CSU Fullerton (likely due to the presence of college students).
• In Garden Grove, there are high poverty areas in the industrial area in West Garden Grove, in the Census Tract between Brookhurst Street and Gilbert Street north of Chapman Avenue (a low-medium segregation area that is predominantly Hispanic), and in the Census Tract in between SR-22 and Garden Grove Boulevard west of Gilbert Street (a high POC segregation area that is predominantly AAPI). • In Huntington Beach, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Irvine, the highest poverty area is surrounding UC Irvine (likely due to the presence of college students). There is also a high poverty area west of San Diego Creek north of I-405. This is primarily an industrial/commercial area encompassing the Irvine Business Complex.
• In La Habra, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Laguna Niguel, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Lake Forest, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Mission Viejo, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Newport Beach, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Orange, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%, and all neighborhoods east of Villa Park have poverty rates below 10%.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In San Clemente, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Santa Ana, high poverty areas are concentrated in downtown and southeast of downtown where land use is primarily industrial and commercial, and in western Santa Ana, specifically the Census Tract northwest of the intersection of McFadden Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, where Kona Kai Mobile Home Park is located. All of these areas are high POC segregation areas with predominantly Hispanic populations.
279
Orange County 104 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Tustin, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Westminster, there are high poverty areas between Edwards Street and Beach Boulevard along Westminster Boulevard, and south of Bolsa Avenue west of Bushard Street. These areas are high POC segregation areas with predominantly AAPI populations.

Map 10 – Poverty Status – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
280
Orange County 105 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 10 – Poverty Status – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
281
Orange County 106 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 10 – Poverty Status – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
282
Orange County 107 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 10 – Poverty Status – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Table 8 - Poverty by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin, shows data from the 2018-2022 ACS on poverty rates by race/ethnicity and national origin, for the region, Orange County, the Urban County jurisdictions, and the HUD Entitlement Cities. The table shows the following:
• Countywide, the poverty rate is lower than region for all groups except AAPI residents (who have a poverty rate comparable to the region). There are significant racial/ethnic disparities. The Black poverty rate is highest and is nearly double the White poverty rate, and the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, the poverty rate is lower than the County overall. Similar to the County overall, the Black poverty rate is highest and is nearly double the White poverty rate, and the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population. • In Aliso Viejo, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. Similar to the County, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population. (Note that the Black and Native American populations may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Anaheim, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to the region poverty rate. Black and Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rates. 283
Orange County 108 25-29 Regional AFH
Similar to the County overall, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population.
• In Buena Park, the overall poverty rate is lower than in the County. Similar to the County overall, Black residents have the highest poverty rate. • In Costa Mesa, the overall poverty rate is similar to the County and there are much larger racial/ethnic disparities. The Black poverty rate in the city is over 20%, which is nearly three times as high as the White poverty rate and double the AAPI poverty rate. Similar to the County overall, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population.
• In Fountain Valley, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. Similar to the County, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population. (Note that the Black and Native American populations may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Fullerton, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to the region poverty rate, and there are much larger racial/ethnic disparities than in the County overall. The Black poverty rate is over 22%, which is almost three times higher than the White and AAPI poverty rates. The Hispanic poverty rate is above 17%, which is more than double the White and AAPI rates. Similar to the County overall, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population. (Note that the Native American population may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Garden Grove, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to the region poverty rate. There are relatively small disparities by race/ethnicity, with Black residents experiencing the highest poverty rates, and foreign-born residents more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. • In Huntington Beach, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County and the foreign-born population is much more likely to live below poverty than the nativeborn population. (Note that the Native American population may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Irvine, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to the region poverty rate. Black, Hispanic, and AAPI residents experience similar poverty rates, which are all higher than the poverty rate for White residents. Foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. • In La Habra, the overall poverty rate is similar to the County. Foreign-born residents more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents, and Hispanic residents have a higher poverty rate than other groups. (Note that the Black and Native American populations may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.) • In Laguna Niguel, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. However, there are disparities between groups. Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rate in 284
Orange County 109 25-29 Regional AFH
the city, and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than nativeborn residents. • In Lake Forest, the overall poverty rate is lower than in the County. However, there are disparities between groups. Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rate in the city, and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than nativeborn residents. • In Mission Viejo, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. The data show the Black poverty rate to be much higher than other racial/ethnic groups, however the population size may be too small for the data to be accurate. • In Newport Beach, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. Unlike the County overall, foreign-born residents in the city are less likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. Poverty rates for Black, AAPI, and Native American residents are the highest. However, note that the Black and Native American populations may be too small for the sample data to be accurate. • In Orange, the overall poverty rate is similar to the County. In the city, Native American and Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rates, and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County.The data show the Native American poverty rate to be much higher than other racial/ethnic groups, however the population size may be too small for the data to be accurate.
• In San Clemente, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. The data show the Black poverty rate to be much higher than other racial/ethnic groups, however the population size may be too small for the data to be accurate. • In Santa Ana, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County but lower than the region poverty rate. Black residents have the highest poverty rate (nearly 20%). • In Tustin, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County but lower than the region poverty rate. Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rate (nearly double the White poverty rate), and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents.
• In Westminster, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and the region.The Black poverty rate is over 20% and more than double the White poverty rate. The AAPI poverty rate is over 18% and is also more than double the White poverty rate.

Foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. (Note that the Native American population may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
285
Orange County 110 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 8 – Poverty by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin 286
Orange County 111 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 8 – Poverty by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin (continued) 287
Orange County 112 25-29 Regional AFH

5. Access to Environmentally Healthy Neighborhoods
The following analysis describes any disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by protected class groups.

Table 6 includes an Environmental Health Index, which captures the potential exposure to harmful toxins in a neighborhood. Higher index values indicate less exposure to harmful toxins, and therefore better environmental quality, in a neighborhood.

Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, there is relatively low access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods for all groups, and racial/ethnic disparities exist. Access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods is highest access for White residents, and lowest for Black residents followed by Hispanic and AAPI residents. Access is lower for all groups living below the FPL, with the least access experienced by Hispanic residents living below the FPL.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there is relatively low access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods for all groups, and racial/ethnic disparities exist. Access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods is highest access for White residents, and lowest for AAPI residents followed by Black and Hispanic residents.

Access is lower for all groups living below the FPL, except for White residents who have comparable access to the overall population.
• In Aliso Viejo, there is relatively high access to environmentally health neighborhoods for all groups compared to the region, and no racial/ethnic disparities.
• In Anaheim, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Buena Park, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Costa Mesa, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region, but access is still low.There are some racial/ethnic disparities in access. Overall, AAPI residents have the least access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods, and Hispanic residents have the best access. For the population living below the FPL, Black and Native American residents have the least access.
• In Fountain Valley, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents compared to the region. There are small disparities in access for the population living below the FPL. Specifically, Black residents living below the FPL have the least access.
288
Orange County 113 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fullerton, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Garden Grove, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity. • In Huntington Beach, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still fairly low and there are some racial/ethnic disparities. Access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods is lowest for Hispanic residents, and even more so for Hispanic residents living below the FPL.
• In Irvine, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than those of the region, but access is still low for all groups regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In La Habra, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Laguna Niguel, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited for all groups regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Lake Forest, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited and there are some disparities among the population living below the FPL—specifically, Native American residents living below the FPL have the least access. • In Mission Viejo, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited for all groups regardless of race/ethnicity
• In Newport Beach, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited for all groups regardless of race/ethnicity
• In Orange, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, there is relatively high access to environmentally health neighborhoods for all groups compared to the region and other jurisdictions in Orange County, and no racial/ethnic disparities.
• In San Clemente, there is relatively high access to environmentally health neighborhoods for all groups compared to the region and other jurisdictions in Orange County, and no racial/ethnic disparities.
• In Santa Ana, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Tustin, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
289
Orange County 114 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Westminster, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.

Map 11 – Environmental Health, is a series of maps showing data from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen 4.0). These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using CalEnviroScreen data from OEHHA14F
15 .

The CalEnviroScreen tool is designed to identify communities most affected by pollution, and those where residents may be especially vulnerable to its effects. To do this, it uses a composite score based on 13 different indicators of pollution burden – such as exposure indicators (e.g., diesel particulate matter levels and lead risk from housing and environmental effect indicators (e.g., location of solid waste facilities) - as well as eight indicators of population characteristics including sensitive population indicators (e.g., asthma rates) and socioeconomic factor factors (e.g., poverty and linguistic isolation). More detailed information on the mapping methodology is available on the OEHHA website15F 16 .

On these maps, green areas represent regions with more positive environmental factors, while red areas indicate regions with more negative environmental factors.

These maps show the following relationship between an individual’s place of residence and their access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods:
• Countywide, the areas with more positive environmental factors are along the coast, in the south, and northeast.The areas with more negative environmental factors are in the central parts of the County north of I-405 and west of the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55).
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, most neighborhoods have primarily positive environmental factors. The areas with more negative environmental factors are located in the following places:
o Stanton.
o Southwest Placentia, next to Fullerton, which is an area of high POC segregation and is predominantly Hispanic.
o San Juan Capistrano, in the Census Tract that encompasses the interchange between I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74), which is a high POC segregation area and is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Aliso Viejo, all neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors. 15 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 16 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen
290
Orange County 115 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Anaheim, Anaheim Hills (a high White segregation area), has positive environmental factors. Much of the rest of the city is affected by negative environmental factors, with the severe environmental factors located in and around downtown, along I-5 cutting across the city, and along Riverside Freeway (SR-91) on the northern edge of the city.
• In Buena Park, there is one Census Tract with a score lower than 40 (indicating more positive environmental factors). This area is between La Palma Avenue and Crescent Avenue, on either side of Knott Avenue. Areas of the city with more negative environmental factors include the neighborhoods north of the Artesia Freeway (SR91) and adjacent to I-5, and the western part of the city, which includes numerous warehouses and distribution facilities.
• In Costa Mesa, areas with more positive environmental factors include neighborhoods east of Newport Boulevard (SR-55), which are high White segregation areas, as well as neighborhoods along the western edge of the city and north of I-405, which are also predominantly White. The areas with more negative environmental factors include neighborhoods downtown, which are predominantly Hispanic.
• In Fountain Valley, areas with more positive environmental factors include the neighborhoods in the southwest corner of city, which have a high concentration of White residents, and those surrounding Mile Square Regional Park, a high POC segregation area that is predominantly AAPI. The rest of the city experiences moderate environmental factors.
• In Fullerton, areas with more positive environmental factors include the neighborhoods near the Panorama Nature Preserve in the city’s northeast. Areas with more negative environmental factors include the neighborhoods in the southeast part of the city, which are predominantly Hispanic—this area includes the commercial/industrial area along the Riverside Freeway (SR-91); and neighborhoods in the southwest part of the city, around Fullerton Municipal Airport and to the south, which are also predominantly Hispanic.
• In Garden Grove, residential neighborhoods in West Garden Grove, west of Knott Street have more positive environmental factors and are areas of high White segregation. The rest of the city experiences less positive environmental factors, with the most negative factors located in West Garden Grove, east of Knott Street an industrial and commercial area, and along Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22), in the city’s southeast.
• In Huntington Beach, most of the city – particularly along the coast and in the southeastern region – has more positive environmental factors. However, an area with less positive environmental factors is in the industrial/commercial area between Beach Boulevard (SR-39) and Gothard Street, spanning from Talbert 291
Orange County 116 25-29 Regional AFH
Avenue to Edinger Avenue.This area overlaps with the one predominantly Hispanic Census Tract.
• In Irvine, most of the neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors.

The few places with more negative environmental factors include the area west of San Diego Creek north of I-405 (which is primarily comprised of industrial and commercial land uses, including the Irvine Business Complex), the area between UC Irvine and I-405 (which is a high POC segregation area and is predominantly AAPI), and the eastern part of city along I-5 near Lake Forest, where Irvine Industrial Complex East and Irvine Technology Center are located.
• In La Habra, most of the city is affected by negative environmental factors, with the most negative factors concentrated in the central and southeast areas of the city/ This is likely due to the proximity to warehouses, distribution centers, and Imperial Highway (SR-90).These areas overlap with the high POC segregation areas, which are predominantly Hispanic.
• In Laguna Niguel, all neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors. • In Lake Forest, most neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors, except for those south of Serrano Creek, which experience more negative environmental factors.
• In Mission Viejo, all neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors. • In Newport Beach, all neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors. • In Orange, the neighborhoods east of Villa Park, which haver high White segregation, experience more positive environmental factors. Neighborhoods west of Glassel Street, which are predominantly Hispanic, are affected by more negative environmental factors.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, all neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors.
• In San Clemente, most neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors, except for one area with moderate environmental factors. This area encompasses the neighborhoods north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park, and is classified as a low-medium concentration area with a predominantly White population.
• In Santa Ana, most of the city has negative environmental factors, with the most negative factors located in the east and southeast side of the city along the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55), where many of the commercial/industrial land uses are located. Other highly impacted areas include downtown and neighborhoods west of downtown. These are all areas of high POC segregation, and most are predominantly Hispanic, except for one of the Tracts to the far west of downtown, which is predominantly AAPI. There is one Census Tract with positive environmental factors located in the southern part of the city, within a racially integrated area between 292
Orange County 117 25-29 Regional AFH
Segerstrom High School and the Bristol Place Shopping Mall, where White residents are the predominant group.
• In Tustin, neighborhoods north of I-5 have more positive environmental factors, and neighborhoods south of I-5 have more negative environmental factors. • In Westminster, most of the city has negative environmental factors, with the most negative factors located in the central neighborhoods, from I-405 north, between Beach Boulevard and Edwards Street.

Map 11 – Environmental Health – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
293
Orange County 118 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 11 – Environmental Health – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
294
Orange County 119 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 11 – Environmental Health – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
295
Orange County 120 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 11 – Environmental Health – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

6. Disability and Access
The following analysis describes the barriers that deny individuals with disabilities access to opportunity and community assets.

Table 7 – Disability by Type, presents the percentage of residents with various disabilities living in the region, Orange County, the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, and in HUD Entitlement City. In the region and Orange County overall, the most prevalent form of disability is ambulatory difficulty, followed by independent living difficulty. Ambulatory difficulty is also the most prevalent form of disability in the Urban County jurisdictions and all HUD Entitlement Cities except for Aliso Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita, where cognitive difficulty is most prevalent, and Irvine, where independent living difficulty is most prevalent.
296
Orange County 121 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 7 – Disability by Type
297
Orange County 122 25-29 Regional AFH
According to data from HUD, in Orange County, a total of 398 housing discrimination cases were opened between January 2019 and November 2024 (when this report was prepared).

As shown in Table 8, below, the majority (65.33%) of cases alleged discrimination based on disability. (Please note, the total number of cases in the table below equal more than 398, and the percentages equal more than 100% because one case can involve allegations of discrimination based on multiple protected classes). Table 9 shows the number of cases by jurisdiction, and the number and percentage of cases that included allegations of discrimination based on disability status. As the table shows, in nearly all jurisdictions, discrimination based (in whole or in part) on disability status comprises most cases.

Table 8 – Discrimination Complaints, Orange County, 2019-2024 298
Orange County 123 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 9 – Discrimination Complaints by Jurisdiction,
Orange County, 2019-2024
299
Orange County 124 25-29 Regional AFH
The fair housing challenges facing individuals with a disability were described during the stakeholder consultations and community meetings. Participants in these meetings reported the following barriers that deny individuals with disabilities access to opportunity and community assets:
• Individuals with disabilities often seek affordable housing in older buildings that may not meet accessibility standards, creating additional barriers. • Affordable housing options are concentrated in areas of Santa Ana and Anaheim, with fewer options in higher opportunity areas of the County. • Individuals with disabilities often face barriers in accessing necessary modifications in housing. Tenants must provide a doctor's letter to request modifications, yet landlords are often resistant to approving accommodation requests. In many cases, tenants are responsible for covering modification costs, unless the property is government-owned. Additionally, low-income individuals with disabilities struggle to afford the necessary modifications.

7. Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The following analysis identifies and discusses any overarching patterns of access to opportunity and exposure to adverse community factors, including how these patterns compare to patterns of segregation, integration, and R/ECAPs. The analysis also identifies areas that experience: (a) high access; and (b) low access across multiple indicators.

In Orange County, there is a general pattern of disparities in access to opportunity between the cities in the central part of the County, and the cities and unincorporated areas along the coast and in the southern and northeastern parts of the County. Cities in central Orange County tend to have higher poverty areas, lower educational scores, lower economic scores, and worse environmental health factors. These cities are also comprised of many areas of high POC segregation, with predominantly Hispanic populations. Except for Garden Grove and Westminster, which have neighborhoods with predominantly AAPI populations. Conversely, the cities and unincorporated areas along the coast and in the south and northeast experience lower poverty rates, higher educational scores, higher economic scores, and better environmental health factors. These areas correspond to areas of high White segregation and predominantly White populations.

In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
• The following racial/ethnic groups experience disparities in access across multiple indicators:
o Hispanic residents, and particularly those living below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), have the least access to low poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods in close proximity to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. 300
Orange County 125 25-29 Regional AFH
• The following areas experience low access across multiple indicators:
o Southwest Placentia neighborhoods have low access to environmental health, high poverty, low economic scores, and are not located in a highquality transit area. This part of the city is a high POC segregation area that is predominantly Hispanic.
o Stanton residents experience low access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods and high exposure to poverty on the south side of Katella Avenue and on the east side of Beach Boulevard north of Katella Avenue. o In San Juan Capistrano, the neighborhoods surrounding the I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74) interchange experience poor environmental health and have low economic scores. This is a high POC segregation area and is predominantly Hispanic.
• Apart from the areas above, the rest of the Urban County jurisdictions experience high environmental quality and have relatively low poverty. In addition, the following areas have access to educational and economic opportunities, as reflected in high education and economic scores on the maps analyzed above:
o Brea, Cypress, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Los Alamitos, North Tustin, Orange Park Acres, Villa Park, Yorba Linda, and the unincorporated areas east of Yorba Linda
In Aliso Viejo, residents have high access across multiple opportunities, including high education scores, high economic scores, high environmental quality, and low exposure to poverty. However, residents generally do not have good access to transit and neighborhoods with low transportation costs.

In Anaheim, Hispanic residents have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods near the downtown have low environmental health, low education scores, low economic scores; but good access to HQTAs. Conversely, Anaheim Hills, which is a predominantly White area, has the best access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods with low poverty rates, high education scores, and high economic scores.

In Buena Park, Hispanic and Black residents have less access than other groups to neighborhoods with low poverty rates and high performing schools. Geographically, the neighborhoods in the center of the city, between I-5 and the Artesia Freeway (SR-91), have poor environmental health, lower educational scores, and lower economic scores.

In Costa Mesa, Hispanic residents have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods downtown and west of downtown are less environmentally healthy and have lower education and economic 301
Orange County 126 25-29 Regional AFH
scores. These are also predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods. Conversely, neighborhoods east of Newport Boulevard (SR-55), which are predominantly White, have higher education and economic scores, are more environmentally healthy, and have lower poverty rates.

In Fountain Valley, neighborhoods across the city have relatively high economic and educational scores, and relatively low poverty rates. White or AAPI residents comprise the predominant population in all neighborhoods.

In Fullerton, Hispanic residents have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods in southeast Fullerton (which are predominantly Hispanic), have relatively low economic and education scores, poor environmental quality, and relatively high poverty rates. Conversely, neighborhoods in the northern part of the city, which are predominantly White or AAPI, have higher education and economic scores, better environmental health, and lower poverty.

In Garden Grove, Hispanic and AAPI residents have the least access to low poverty neighborhoods and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital.

Additionally, Hispanic residents also have the least access to neighborhoods with high performing schools. Geographically, the neighborhoods with access to the most opportunities are in West Garden Grove, where education and economic scores are high, environmental quality is high, and poverty is low. West Garden Grove is a predominantly White area.

In Huntington Beach, Hispanic residents have relatively low access to neighborhoods with good environmental health, low poverty, high education scores, and high economic scores.

Overall, access to opportunities in the city is high compared to the region.

In Irvine, residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities.

Geographically, the neighborhoods surrounding UC Irvine have relatively low economic scores and relatively high poverty rates, but this is most likely due to the concentration of college students in this area.

In La Habra, neighborhoods in the city’s center and southeast of the center have poor environmental quality, low education scores, and low economic scores. These neighborhoods are also predominantly Hispanic.

In Laguna Niguel, residents have high access across multiple opportunities, including high education scores, high economic scores, high environmental quality, and low exposure to poverty. However, residents generally do not have good access to transit and neighborhoods with low transportation costs.
302
Orange County 127 25-29 Regional AFH
In Lake Forest, residents overall have relatively good access to opportunities, compared to the region. However, residents living below the FPL in the city generally have less access to opportunities than the rest of the population.

In Mission Viejo, residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities (apart from transit and low-cost transportation). Most of the city’s neighborhoods are predominantly White, except in the south.

In Newport Beach, residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities. All of the city’s neighborhoods are predominantly White.

In Orange, Hispanic, and Black residents (especially Black residents living below the FPL) have relatively low access to neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods west of Glassel Street (which are predominantly Hispanic), have lower education and economic scores, and worse environmental quality. Conversely, neighborhoods to the north and east of Villa Park (predominantly White), have high education and economic scores, and good environmental quality.

In Rancho Santa Margarita, residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities. All of the city’s neighborhoods are predominantly White.

In San Clemente, residents have relatively high access to opportunities compared to the region. Geographically, compared to the rest of the city, neighborhoods north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park have lower environmental quality, lower economic scores, and slightly higher poverty rates.

In Santa Ana, Hispanic residents are more likely than other groups to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods and are less likely than other groups to live in close proximity to high performing schools, or in neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods downtown, west of downtown, and southeast of downtown have low economic scores, low education scores, high poverty rates, and poor environmental quality. Neighborhoods in the north and south of the city have better economic and education scores.

In Tustin, Hispanic residents (especially those below FPL) are less likely than other groups to live in close proximity to high performing schools, or in neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital; and are more likely to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods.

In Westminster, AAPI residents are more likely than other groups to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods and are less likely than other groups to live in close proximity to high performing schools or jobs. Native American residents living below the FPL are also less likely to live in close proximity to high performing schools or jobs. 303
Orange County 128 25-29 Regional AFH
This section describes the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, or other factors that may have caused or contributed to the patterns described above.

Broadly speaking, disparities in access to opportunities between and within jurisdictions in Orange County are due, in part, to:
• Lack of affordable (market or publicly subsidized) housing in high opportunity areas, due to market factors, governmental constraints, and community opposition to high density zoning.
• Lack of public and private investment in low-opportunity neighborhoods. • Displacement of residents is due to rising housing costs.

Through the stakeholder consultations and community meetings, it was also reported that disparities in access to opportunities in the County are due to:
• In addition to landlord resistance to renting to HCV Program participants, the gap between HCV subsidy amounts and housing costs further inhibits HCV Program participants from accessing housing in higher cost (and higher opportunity areas). • Many seniors are on fixed incomes and cannot keep up with the rising cost of housing.
• The high cost of land, which makes it hard to build new affordable housing in high opportunity areas.
• The California Coastal Act, which limits development in high opportunity areas along the coast.
• Lack of accessible housing for individuals with disabilities.

Detailed lists of the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, and other factors that have caused or contributed to disparities in access to opportunities in each of the jurisdictions are included in Section IV. 304
Orange County 129 25-29 Regional AFH
E. Disproportionate Housing Needs
The following analysis describes which groups experience higher rates of housing cost burden, severe housing cost burden, overcrowding, or substandard housing when compared to other groups.

Housing Problems
Table 10 – Disproportionate Housing Problems, shows 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data on the percentage of households experiencing at least one of the following four housing problems, organized by race/ethnicity:
• Lacks complete kitchen facilities: Household lacks a sink with piped water, a range or stove, or a refrigerator.
• Lacks complete plumbing facilities: Household lacks hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or shower.
• Overcrowding: A household is considered overcrowded if there are more than 1.01 individuals per room.
• Cost burden: A household is considered cost burdened if the household spends more than 30% of its total gross income for housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant, plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities.

A disproportionately greater need exists when members of a racial or ethnic group in a certain income range experience housing problems at a rate that is least 10 percentage points higher than the rate experienced by all households within that income level. Table 10 reports the following:
• American Indian or Alaska Native households, and Pacific Islander households have disproportionate housing needs within the 80%-100% AMI range. • It is also worth noting that Hispanic households in the 30% AMI and below range experience housing needs at a much higher rate than the overall population in that income range, though the rate is slightly less than 10 percentage points. 305
Orange County 130 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 10 - Disproportionate Housing Problems, Orange County Percent of households experiencing at least one
housing burden, by income range
Race/Ethnicity Less than
30% AMI
30%-50%
AMI
50%-80%
AMI
80%-100%
AMI
Orange County as a whole 79.8% 78.9% 63.3% 42.6%
White 77.4% 72.4% 61.6% 43.8%
Black/African American 81.5% 85.9% 70.9% 37.5%
Asian 72.5% 78.5% 61.7% 44.1%
American Indian or Alaska Native 59.7% 60.7% 56.5% 54.2% Pacific Islander 78.1% 76.5% 71.7% 55.1%
Hispanic 89.5% 86.0% 65.4% 39.3%
Source: CHAS 2017-2021
Severe Housing Problems
Table 11 – Disproportionate Severe Housing Problems, shows 2017-2021 CHAS data on the percentage of households experiencing at least one of the following four severe housing problems, organized by race/ethnicity:
• Lacks complete kitchen facilities: Household does not have a stove/oven and refrigerator.
• Lacks complete plumbing facilities: Household does not have running water or modern toilets.
• Severe overcrowding: A household is considered severely overcrowded if there are more than 1.5 individuals per room.
• Severe cost burden: A household is considered severely cost burdened if the household spends more than 50% of its total income for housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant, plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities.

According to Table 11, the following groups experience disproportionate need as defined above:
• Hispanic households have disproportionate severe housing needs within the 0%- 30% AMI range.
• American Indian or Alaska Native households, and Pacific Islander households have disproportionate severe housing needs within the 50%-80% AMI range. • American Indian or Alaska Native households have disproportionate severe housing needs within the 80%-100% AMI range.
306
Orange County 131 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 11 - Disproportionate Severe Housing Problems, Orange County Percent of households experiencing at least one
severe housing burden, by income range
Race/Ethnicity Less than
30% AMI
30%-50%
AMI
50%-80%
AMI
80%-100%
AMI
Orange County as a whole 71.2% 55.5% 28.0% 14.8%
White 68.7% 52.5% 22.9% 10.5%
Black/African American 72.9% 55.5% 25.2% 4.3%
Asian 62.4% 52.5% 27.7% 15.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native 59.7% 17.0% 44.4% 30.6% Pacific Islander 58.1% 59.3% 40.7% 19.2%
Hispanic 82.2% 60.3% 34.6% 23.0%
Source: CHAS 2017-2021
The following analysis identifies which areas experience the greatest housing burdens and describes which of these areas align with segregated areas, integrated areas, or R/ECAPs, and the predominant race/ethnicity or national origin groups in such areas.

Map 12 – Housing Problems, is a series of maps illustrating concentrations of households experiencing housing burdens in Orange County. These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates16F
17 . On these maps, areas with darker
shading have a higher percentage of households experiencing a particular housing problem (i.e., cost burden, overcrowding, incomplete plumbing, and incomplete kitchen facilities.

The maps show that the areas experiencing the greatest housing burdens are the following:
• Overcrowding is an issue that is generally only experienced by the residents of cities in the central and northern parts of the County. Overcrowding is not a significant concern in the coastal areas, the areas south and east of Irvine, or the northeastern region, including Yorba Linda and the unincorporated areas to the east Conversely, more than 20% of all units are overcrowded in the following areas:
o In Santa Ana, in most of the city, which are also areas of high POC segregation and are predominantly Hispanic.
o In Garden Grove, in the eastern and southeastern neighborhoods, which are areas of high POC segregation and are predominantly Hispanic in the east. 17 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 307
Orange County 132 25-29 Regional AFH
o In Anaheim, in the neighborhoods north and south of downtown, and around Disneyland. These are also areas of high POC segregation and are predominantly Hispanic.
o In Fullerton, in the neighborhoods south of downtown, which are predominantly Hispanic.
• Overpayment by renters is an issue everywhere in the County. In most neighborhoods in the County, over 40% of renter households are struggling with overpayment.
• Overpayment by owners is less of an issue than overpayment by renters but is also widespread throughout the County. In many neighborhoods, 20-40% of homeowner households struggle with overpayment. There are only a few areas where more than 60% or fewer than 20% of homeowner households struggle with overpayment. • Incomplete plumbing is not a significant concern in the County, as fewer than 2% of homes experience this issue. However, one exception is Fountain Valley, where 5- 10% of housing units are affected. This area includes the neighborhood surrounding Fountain Valley High School and north to Warner Avenue, which is an area of high POC segregation.
• Incomplete kitchen facilities are also not a significant concern in the County. In most of the County less than 10% of homes experience this issue. The areas where more than 10% of homes experience this issue are:
o In Anaheim, in the western neighborhoods, which are racially integrated and predominantly Hispanic, except for one Census Tract that is predominantly AAPI.
o In Orange, in the predominantly Hispanic area west of Glassel Street and north of Walnut Avenue.
o In La Habra, in one Census Tract in the north central part of the city. o In Irvine, near UC Irvine (which may reflect a concentration of student housing).
308
Orange County 133 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Overcrowding
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Overpayment by Renters
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
309
Orange County 134 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Overpayment by Owners
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Lacking Complete Plumbing
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
310
Orange County 135 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Lacking Complete Kitchen
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes the differences in rates of renter and owner-occupied housing by race/ethnicity.

Table 12 – Housing Tenure by Race/Ethnicity, shows the percentages of households that are renters and homeowners by race/ethnicity, based on data from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey. The table shows that,
• Countywide, the homeownership rate is 56.5%, which is higher than the homeownership rate in the region.There are large disparities in homeownership by race/ethnicity. Black households have the lowest homeownership rate (32.4%). Less than 40% of Hispanic households own their home, and approximately 42% of Native households own their home. White and AAPI households have the highest homeownership rates.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, homeownership rates are higher overall and for each group compared to the County. The same disparities in homeownership by race/ethnicity exist as in the County. • In Aliso Viejo, homeownership rates for AAPI, Black, and Hispanic households are higher than in the County overall, and homeownership rates for White households are lower.
• In Anaheim, homeownership rates are lower for all groups compared to the County, and similar racial/ethnic disparities exist.
311
Orange County 136 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Buena Park, homeownership rates and racial/ethnic disparities are similar to the County overall; however, the disparities are even larger due to a higher homeownership rate for White households compared to the County, and a lower rate for Black households compared to the County.
• In Costa Mesa, homeownership rates are lower for all groups compared to the County, and similar racial/ethnic disparities exist.
• In Fountain Valley, homeownership rates are higher compared to the County for all groups, except Black households. However, it is important to note that the small sample size for Black households may affect the accuracy of the data is not accurate. • In Fullerton, homeownership rates are lower for all groups than the County overall, except for AAPI households. Racial/ethnic disparities exist, with Native American households the least likely to own their home, and AAPI households most likely. • In Garden Grove, the Black and Hispanic homeownership rate is half the White homeownership rate. The AAPI homeownership rate in the city is lower than the AAPI homeownership countywide.
• In Huntington Beach, homeownership rates are lower for White, Black, and Hispanic households compared to the County overall, and higher for AAPI and Native American households. Similar racial/ethnic disparities exist in the city as in the County.
• In Irvine, homeownership rates are lower for all groups compared to the County overall, and racial/ethnic disparities are similar to the County, with Black and Hispanic households experiencing the lowest homeownership rates (15.7% and 18% respectively)
• In La Habra, homeownership rates are higher for all groups compared to the County, and similar racial/ethnic disparities exist as in the County. • In Laguna Niguel, homeownership rates are higher for all groups compared to the County, and racial/ethnic disparities exist—the Hispanic homeownership rate is the lowest, followed by the Black homeownership rate. The AAPI homeownership rate is the highest, followed by the White homeownership rate. • In Lake Forest, homeownership rates are higher for all groups compared to the County, except Native American households. Racial/Ethnic disparities exist, with AAPI and White homeownership higher than Black and Hispanic homeownership rates.
• In Mission Viejo, homeownership rates across all groups are much higher than in the County overall, though racial/ethnic disparities still exist. The Black homeownership rate is the lowest in the city, though it is above 60%. • In Newport Beach, homeownership rates are lower for all groups compared to the County overall, except for AAPI households, who have slightly higher homeownership rate in the city. The Black and Native American homeownership 312
Orange County 137 25-29 Regional AFH
rates are very low in the city. However, due to the small sample sizes for these groups, the data may not be entirely accurate.
• In Orange, homeownership rates are comparable to the County overall, and similar disparities exist. However, the disparities are slightly larger in the city than in the County, as White, AAPI, and Hispanic homeownership rates are higher than in the County overall, while the Black homeownership rate is lower. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, homeownership rates are higher for all groups when compared to the County. However, there are still racial/ethnic disparities. Hispanic households have the lowest homeownership rate, and it is 20 percentage points lower than the AAPI homeownership rate, which is the highest rate in the city. • In San Clemente, homeownership rates are higher for White, AAPI, and Hispanic households compared to the County overall, while rates are lower for Black and Native American households. Due to the small sample size for Black and Native American households, the data may not be accurate. This causes the racial/ethnic disparities in homeownership rates to be larger than at the County level. • In Santa Ana, racial/ethnic disparities in homeownership rates are similar to the County overall, but less pronounced. This is because homeownership rates in the city are lower for White and AAPI households, and higher for Black, Hispanic, and Native American households compared to the County overall. • In Tustin, homeownership rates are very low for Black and Hispanic households, equaling less than half of the homeownership rate for AAPI and White households.

The AAPI homeownership rate is higher in the city than in the County overall, and the White homeownership rate is lower in the city than in the County overall. • In Westminster, there are large racial/ethnic disparities in homeownership. Black, Hispanic, and Native American households have the lowest rates (30%), and these rates are less than half the homeownership rate for White households, which is the highest in the city. The AAPI homeownership rate in the city is lower than in the County overall and is nearly 20 percentage points lower than the White homeownership rate in the city.
313
Orange County 138 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 12 - Homeownership and Rental Rates by Race/Ethnicity 314
Orange County 139 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 12 - Homeownership and Rental Rates by Race/Ethnicity (continued) 315
Orange County 140 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 12 - Homeownership and Rental Rates by Race/Ethnicity (continued) 316
Orange County 141 25-29 Regional AFH
Charts 1 and 2, below, show denial rates for home purchase loans by race/ethnicity in Orange County and California between 2010-2021. In both Orange County and California, denial rates are highest for Black loan applicants, followed by Hispanic then Asian applicants. White applicants have the lowest denial rates. Denial rates are lower in Orange County for all groups compared to the state, except for Hispanic applicants who have the same denial rate in both geographies. Since the Great Recession, denial rates have fallen for all groups.

Chart 1: Home Purchase Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity, Orange County Source: Analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data by the Federal Reserve Banks of Philadelphia and Cleveland.
317
Orange County 142 25-29 Regional AFH
Chart 2: Home Purchase Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity, California Source: Analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data by the Federal Reserve Banks of Philadelphia and Cleveland.

This section describes the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, or other factors that may have caused or contributed to the patterns described above.

Broadly speaking, disproportionate housing needs across and within jurisdictions in Orange County are influenced by several factors, including:
• The age of housing stock in some neighborhoods, and the high cost of home repairs/rehabilitation relative to incomes.
• Insufficient number of Housing Choice Vouchers or other types of publicly subsidized housing
• Land use and zoning laws that have led to the dominance of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multifamily housing.

Through stakeholder consultations and community meetings, it was also reported that disproportionate housing needs in the County are due to:
• Eviction notices have a particularly adverse impact on tenants, especially on families who are fleeing or those with a history of domestic violence. While the judicial system is making efforts to address these issues, barriers such as language and understanding legal terminology continue to pose challenges. 318
Orange County 143 25-29 Regional AFH
• Lack of adequate shelter for individuals experiencing homelessness, particularly for the most vulnerable groups such as trans women.
• Insufficient homebuyer education for minority homebuyers. • Lack of resources for organizations providing education and services to protected class groups.
• Language and digital literacy barriers that make it hard for LEP populations to locate and access housing resources.

Detailed lists of the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, and other factors that have caused or contributed to disproportionate housing needs in each of the jurisdictions are included in Section IV.

F. Local and State Policies and Practices Impacting Fair Housing The following analysis describes how local laws, policies, ordinances, and other practices impede or promote fair housing (including how they impede or promote the siting or location of affordable housing in well-resourced neighborhoods, and equitable access to homeownership and other asset building and economic opportunities).

In general, land use and zoning laws across Orange County have led to the dominance of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multifamily housing and has contributed in various ways to reinforcing longstanding patterns of segregation, concentration of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities. Through the Housing Element process mandated by the State of California, each jurisdiction has identified various public and/or private policies and practices that have contributed to the fair housing issues identified in this AFH, as well as efforts they are making to promote fair housing.

These items are detailed in Section IV.

This section describes any state or local fair housing laws and the characteristics protected under each law.

In the State of California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibit discrimination in housing based on the following characteristics:
• Race
• Color
• National origin (including language use restrictions) • Religion
• Sex
• Familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians; pregnant women and people securing custody of children under 18) • Handicap (disability)
• Age
• Ancestry
319
Orange County 144 25-29 Regional AFH
• Citizenship
• Gender Identity and Gender Expression
• Genetic Information
• Immigration Status
• Marital Status
• Primary Language
• Sexual Orientation
• Source of Income
• Military or veteran status
This section describes efforts to increase fair housing compliance and enforcement capacity, and to ensure compliance with existing fair housing and civil rights laws and regulations.

Orange County jurisdictions rely on the state and local nonprofit fair housing providers to ensure fair housing compliance and enforcement, including the following organizations:

California Civil Rights Department
The California Civil Rights Department (CRD), formerly known as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), is responsible for enforcing state fair housing laws that make it illegal to discriminate against or harass someone because of a protected characteristic, that require reasonable accommodations for disabilities, and that prohibit retaliation against someone for exercising their rights. The CRD receives and investigates complaints and provides mediation and conflict resolution services throughout the state.

Fair Housing Council of Orange County
The Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC) is a nonprofit with a mission of ensuring access to housing and preserving human rights. FHCOC provides a variety of services in multiple languages, including community outreach and education, homebuyer education, mortgage default counseling, landlord-tenant mediation, and limited low-cost advocacy. In addition to these client services, FHCOC investigates claims of housing discrimination and assists with referrals to the state. FHCOC currently works in Anaheim, Santa Ana, Fountain Valley, Lake Forest, Laguna Niguel, Rancho Santa Margarita, the City of Orange, and Orange County.

Fair Housing Foundation
The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) serves parts of Los Angeles County and several cities in Orange County, including Aliso Viejo, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, San Clemente, Tustin, and Westminster. FHF provides landlord-tenant counseling and mediation, rental housing counseling, and community outreach and education. In addition, the FHF screens 320
Orange County 145 25-29 Regional AFH
fair housing complaints, investigates through testing, and either engages in conciliation or mediation efforts or refers the complaints to the appropriate administrative agencies.

This section describes the status of any unresolved findings, lawsuits, enforcement actions, settlements, or judgments in which the program participant has been a party related to fair housing or other civil rights laws in the jurisdiction.

There are no unresolved findings, lawsuits, enforcement actions, settlements, or judgments in which the program participants have been a party related to fair housing or other civil rights laws in the jurisdictions.
321
Orange County 146 25-29 Regional AFH
IV. Fair Housing Issues and Action Plan
For each participating jurisdiction, this section outlines (1) the issues identified in the preceding analysis; (2) the factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of each fair housing issue; and (3) the actions each jurisdiction has taken or will take to address those contributing factors in order to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

The actions listed below are included in the most recently approved and adopted Housing Element for each jurisdiction, and include actions taken to affirmatively further fair housing since the adoption of the Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in 2020.

A. Orange County Urban County
Across the Urban County jurisdictions, the preceding analysis identified the following fair housing issues:
• Disparities in Access to Opportunities: Hispanic residents, and particularly those living below the FPL, have the least access to low poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods in close proximity to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital.
• Disproportionate Housing Needs: Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in the Urban County jurisdictions. Additionally, there are racial/ethnic disparities in homeownership. Specifically, Black, Latino, and Native American households have low homeownership rates compared to White and AAPI households. The Black homeownership rate, the lowest among all groups, is approximately half the White homeownership rate, which is the highest.

Within the jurisdictions that make up the Urban County, the following additional fair housing issues were identified:
• Unincorporated Orange County
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the unincorporated areas east of Rancho Santa Margarita, in North Tustin, in Orange Park Acres, and in Rossmoor.
• Brea
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
• Cypress
o Segregation: There are areas of high POC segregation (which are predominantly AAPI neighborhoods), and there is overlap between the location of publicly supported housing, including a high rate of voucher use, 322
Orange County 147 25-29 Regional AFH
and areas of high POC segregation in the neighborhood near King Elementary School, in the north of the city.
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
• Dana Point
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city. o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
• La Palma
o Segregation: There are areas of high POC segregation in the city, which are predominantly AAPI neighborhoods.
• Laguna Beach
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city. o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
• Laguna Hills
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city. o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
• Laguna Woods
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city. o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
• Placentia
o Segregation and R/ECAPs:There are areas of high White segregation in the north of the city, and high POC segregation areas in the southwest corner of the city. The high POC segregation area also has several publicly supported housing units, including a high rate of voucher use. Additionally, in this part of the city, the neighborhoods south of Orangethorpe Avenue are a R/ECAP.

The R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic, as are the neighborhoods to the west and south in Fullerton and Anaheim.
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing. Geographically, southwestern Placentia neighborhoods have low access to environmental health, high poverty, low 323
Orange County 148 25-29 Regional AFH
economic scores, and are not located in a high-quality transit area. As noted above, this part of the city is a high POC segregation area that is predominantly Hispanic.
• San Juan Capistrano
o Segregation: There is a high POC segregation area that is predominantly Hispanic. There is overlap between the location of publicly supported housing, including a high rate of voucher use, and the areas of high POC segregation in the Census Tract that encompasses the interchange between I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74).
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing. Geographically, the neighborhoods around the I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74) interchange experience poor environmental health and have low economic scores. This is a high POC segregation area and is predominantly Hispanic.
• Seal Beach
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city. o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
• Stanton
o Segregation:There are areas of high POC segregation in the city, which are predominantly Hispanic or AAPI neighborhoods. There are overlaps between the location of publicly supported housing, including a high rate of voucher use, and areas of high POC segregation throughout the city. o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing. Additionally, all Stanton residents experience low access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods, and residents in the neighborhoods on the south side of Katella Avenue and on the eastside of Beach Boulevard north of Katella Avenue also experience high exposure to poverty.
• Villa Park
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city. • Yorba Linda
o Segregation: There are areas of high POC segregation in the northern area of the city, which is predominantly AAPI, and areas of high White segregation elsewhere
The contributing factors to each of the fair housing issues listed above, along with each jurisdictions’ fair housing goals and actions, are outlined as follows:
324
Orange County 149 25-29 Regional AFH

1. Unincorporated Orange County
Issue: Segregation and R/ECAPs
Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of investment in certain neighborhoods, including lack of community revitalization strategies, lack of private investment, and lack of public investment, including in services and amenities.

2. Limited quantity of affordable housing due to community opposition, land use and zoning laws, and occupancy codes and restrictions.

3. Private discrimination, including source of income discrimination.

4. Limited knowledge of fair housing laws due to: limited resources to pay for outreach; increasingly fewer people rely on newspapers to receive information, and public notices or printed flyers are costly and ineffective means to reach the community at large; unknown language barriers and resource barriers to accessing information.

Actions: Timeframe:

Facilitate Affordable Housing Development through the following actions:

1. Create a Housing Opportunities Overlay Map and webpage providing information about the Housing Opportunities Overlay and identify areas where higher density projects would be permitted with expedited processing, and which may be eligible for density bonuses.

Within 18-months of
adoption/certification of
the Housing Element.

2. Develop informational materials on the County’s website regarding the County’s lot consolidation incentives and density bonus program.

Within 18-months of
adoption/certification of
the Housing Element.

3. Update the “Orange County Housing Opportunities Manual” and will also create and distribute promotional materials explaining the County’s expedited permit processing and incentives for affordable housing to be provided to developers in the region.

Within one year of
adoption and certification
of the Housing Element.

4. Publish and review the Affordable Housing Rental List. Annually

5. Review the County Housing Authority’s participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Section 8 Rental Assistance Program and pursue additional vouchers/funding when available.

Annually

6. Work with applicants who propose for-rent residential projects to encourage four-bedroom units for large families as part of the proposed developments.

As proposals are received
(ongoing)

7. Meet with Developers and DPRC to identify potential constraints to the development of affordable housing and housing for those with special needs in the County’s zoning regulations.

Within one year of
adoption. Address within
six months.

Coordination with Affordable Housing Stakeholders through the following actions:

8. Provide letters of support to affordable housing developers’ applications to local, State, and federal agencies for funding, Initiate by January 2025
325
Orange County 150 25-29 Regional AFH
provided the proposed projects are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.

9. Work with cities and LAFCO to ensure that new planned communities in sphere of influence areas provide adequate sites at appropriate densities for affordable housing.

Annually

10. Conduct meetings with stakeholders, including the development community and property owners to facilitate housing
development.

Annually

11. Attend and promote development incentives at the monthly Housing Opportunities Committee meeting and the bi-monthly OC Housing Finance Trust meetings.

Twice annually

12. Meet with owners of the religious properties identified in the inventory of sites and provide information on regulatory changes, development standards and affordability requirements and incentives and/or assistance available through the County for development of housing on religious institution properties.

By January 2025

13. Meet with nonprofit developers and housing organizations to evaluate projects for acquisition and rehabilitation/new construction of new shelters, and long-term affordable housing, including senior housing.

Annually
Increase knowledge and enforcement of fair housing laws through the following actions:

14. Implement Restrictive Covenant Modification Plan (RCM) including Phase III, examination of remaining handwritten documents for unlawful languages and process.

By July 2027

15. Continue to work under contract with the FHCOC and/or other qualified fair housing service providers to provide fair housing services for all segments of the community. Evaluate and adjust the scope of services to ensure the County addresses any emerging trends in fair housing.

Annually

16. Provide federal/state/local information regarding discrimination to residents, including applicable Fair Housing Information and Discrimination Complaint Forms.

Annually

17. Maintain bilingual staff to assist non-English speaking families and ensure handicap accessible offices.

Annually

18. Work with the fair housing agencies to provide information regarding housing discrimination and intervention to resolve complaints.

San Clemente City CouncilMay 6, 2025

San Clemente City Council
May 6, 2025